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

Subject:

Comments:
> >I can envision your reaction had I posted to the thread on gender below >"you're wrong. Differences between men and women are all genetic. I know >because I have a hunch." > "Do you cross roads with your eyes shut, having a hunch there are no cars coming?" Something like that, I can't get a spontaneous one said in this setting... > > The gravitation towards thinking in a Five is perfectly real, but the >feeling of incompetence--and that the ability to function rests on >gaining more knowledge--that a Five feels is an illusion. And this part >of the Five's mechanism is what correspond's to the Two's covering up >neediness, or to any other type's mechanism. These are all illusions-->Twos don't really need an endless supply of affection; Fives would be >perfectly competent if they stopped intellectualising, etc. > This is what I'd call illusions too, the apparent need for something. It just seemed to me that "empathy" meant actual behavior, not the underlying need. > > It'd be impossible for me to emulate a Two, because I don't feel an >overwhelming need for affection. I don't think a Two could begin to >emulate a Five either, since the feeling that competence rests on >knowledge isn't there. Nor am I afraid of intense emotions--the Four side >of me wishes the defense mechanisms of intellectualisation would crack >more often. > Yes, emulating probably is impossible, but acting in a way someone does is...the question about "to what extent" is present here, I know. If someone preferring to keep cool starts being emotional, s/he'd feel awkward. As I do when I start theoretisizing too abstractly. *S* Btw, the wings play a significant part here (for some), I have a very clear one streak in me. It blends to the twoness, so I know I'm noticiably different than someone with a milder wing or a 3 wing. > > > Aside from which, though I have a strong Four wing, I'm not an overly emotional person, and Twos are probably the most emotional of the types. > Probably so, although I don't show my emotions readily when dealing with strangers. The result of years' long learning I'm now trying to forget to some extent. However, those feelings are very much present, even though kept under a lid. > > > I'm not talking about conscious fears. Sixes do indeed sit around >fearing all the things that could happen to them. What I referred to was >that there is a subconscious process going on called identification which >leads you to feel closer emotionally to something which is similar to you >than to something which is dissimilar. > I couldn't think it was any other way. I mean, how could you identify with someone you don't know? > > You can't feel emotionally close to a rock, because you can't envision >being a rock. You don't think of a rock as something with life (rightly >so) or emotions similar to yours. For the same reason a person finds it >harder to relate to someone living thousands of miles away than to >someone living in their neighbourhood. Herein lies the reason for 'local' >media: you don't see your local newspaper carrying headlines about car >accidents in Venezuela, while if there is a fatal crash in your area it >makes the front page. Why is this? It's because people, on a very deep, >subconscious level, relate to the things they *know* and that are close >to them. > (Mental practice) *sitting on the cold ground...not being able to move...rain washing over me...a dog peeing on me...darn...wind blowing* *L* > > Hence an emotional person is likely not only to feel more deeply, but to have a broader range of emotions than a rational person. Result: it's easier for them to empathize. It's impossible to empathize with someone who's feeling something you never have (we can feel for an ant because it's alive like us, not because we know what it's like to be an ant!) But if you've felt almost everything, that's rarely a barrier (though it can be a hindrance in itself). > Yes, it's true it's impossible to empathize a completely unknown feeling. But how many such feelings are there? Many feelings, even though being different have similarities and are at different magnitudes. It's not like (IMO) that you've had to experience something to be able to know what the other person is feeling. Imagination works too. If everything else fails and you're with a devastated person, just being there helps too. Can be counted as empathy, in my opinion. > > It's nothing like people sitting around a table working out complex equations thinking "oh, so now I should be sad." > Oh, I thought that's the five way to feel. *J/K* ;) > > As for reason vs. emotion... they both have their place, and both are indispensible. Along the same lines of Einstein's comment about science and faith. > Balance is important. > > Yes.. I've got my legs up on a stool... a glass of orange juice with a little umbrella... I'm perfectly relaxed :) > Darn, I have a beer... > > The comment about clarification was in response to Andy's saying he >wasn't going to elaborate. The response further down was to the little he >elaborated. > Ok, I was just amazed to see the answer, those two sentences there...any of the teachers I've had would've called it "bad phrasing". I didn't like those teachers. *S* > > Again, you're confusing conscious thought with subconscious. Sixes are >probably the only type which consciously fixates on threat; that's very >different from identification, one of the most basic qualities of humans. > There's unconscious too, the pre-state of conscious and above subconscious--it's the thing people often refer to being the subconscious. > > > Why is acknowledgement a key factor (this is something often mentioned >by Twos)? Why don't you feel sympathy for all people who suffer, >regardless of whether they turn to you and say "could you help me please?" > I don't know about the others, but you can't help anyone who doesn't want to be helped. *a million twos going "NO!"* They don't necessarily have to turn to me, sometimes I reach out for someone asking for *anybody*, sometimes people come over to me without asking if I have the time...*S* Mind you, I'm not a very outgoing person as you might expect a two to be. > Why I don't feel sympathy for anyone? It's a learned thing, I used to. Then I realized I'd go crazy if I would've kept doing that. > > > This goes back to the point about identification. In Twos the dichotomy >between near/far is usually even clearer than in other types. While in >other types there's a gradient (most empathy for those close, little for >those far, steady slope between), Twos usually empathize *very* deeply >with those near them and very little for the suffering of those they >don't know. Which is understandable given that someone three continents >away can't possibly say thank you for your kind intentions whereas >someone near you will lavish you with affection immediately. > That's very true. Everyone, please say I'm adorable! ;) > > If this were the case then you'd be able to feel what an ant (or any >other creature) feels. But you can't, because it's impossible for you to >know how an ant feels. In the same way it's impossible for you to >actually experience someone else's emotions. What really happens is your >brain gauges (based on the things you know about people's behaviour, >etc.) what they are *likely* feeling, at which point your basic human >identification creates the same feelings inside you. If you could really >feel what others feel, you'd never go wrong! You'd always be correct in >your assessment of other people's moods and emotional nuances. But we all >know this isn't the case. It's all too common for people (especially >Twos, a point Riso emphasises in his descriptions) to say "oh you must >feel such and such emotion" when the person isn't feeling that at all. >How could this be? If empathy was really feeling what someone else feels, >how could you be misled? > Of course we can't *be* other people. I don't often say what I think someone is feeling, but I do assume. People do mistakes, I once heard about a five who had a mistaken thought... :P I'd say it's much like probing, like looking for an exit in a dark room with your eyes blindfolded just to be sure. You can assume, find some directions, but only at least somewhat disintegrated twos are sure. > > On this point I think Eddie's post summed it up best: empathy is based >on the ability to: a) correctly judge what someone is feeling (which is >an intuitive and rational enterprise) and b) identify with the emotion >you've identified. Twos fit the bill better than any other type, because >they make it their business to learn to identify what people feel, and >because they generally have an emotional nature and so find it to >identify. The catch is that they usually ignore the original reason they >seek to know what people are feeling in the first place, which goes back >to my original post about the illusionary nature of the mechanism itself. > That's well said. > Ronnie

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: