Do people actually want empathy?

[eyeseeyou]

From what I have observed, I might be wrong, it seems that people don't necessarily.

If an expression of empathy is attempted accusations of 'minimising' can ensue. Because it is not the same, exactly the same but what ever is? If you empathise emotionally, then again, not wanted because you are trying to shift the attention onto yourself.

Even worse if you have overcome the particular problem and talk about how.

There must be a balance in this because people will accuse others of not having any empathy. But what do they want? A hug - no, not necessarily, some people hate that. Join in complaining? No, makes them feel worse. To listen? (Do you really need to be there and not respond at all?,) - well it doesn't help.

So, I do feel empathy. But should I express it? How?

I think it depends on how you express that empathy. Often, when people try to empathise it can come across as turning the conversation back to themselves ("I know how that feels", "that happened to me", etc.).

What IMO works better is being able to validate the person's feelings and empathise with them, but not turning it into a ping pong of who's had the worse time of it. So, trying to say things like "that must have been awful for you", "that must have hurt a lot", etc.
Sort of "active listening", I suppose.

I agree, I think it's very difficult and probably depends a lot on the individual. Some people want practical advice and others really don't, some people want to just pour it out and for you to say nothing and just listen, some people want you to be sympathetic and validate with 'how horrible that must have been' etc. Sometimes people want to hear about how you've been through similar and how you coped - and others don't.

Personally I find it exhausting just thinking about it and if they don't like how I handle it then then can find someone else to tell all their woes to.

Sometimes I just wanna rant. Fir few seconds. I dont need or want " sympathy " that let's face it is usually given because its expected and most the time.thwy can't possibly know what it's like.

I personally feel the kick.up the arse approach works for me. I've always appreciated the honesty my friends have given. I'd have that over validating feelings that may at the time be be an over reaction or irrational or based on something that's not even happened yet. I dont find being indulged in a rabbit hole if creating drama (.not that I do that but u get what I mean) helpful fir me.

If that makes any sense.

It sounds like what you're expressing isn't empathy.... empathy definitely doesn't minimise. sometimes self disclosure of shared experiences feels competitive in a way. Have you looked at active listening skills? I think people often do like to have a but of a rant or offload and just be heard and accepted for where they are at. So best is just the communication nosies that encourage them to keep talking the hmms and 'oh right' 'was that last Tuesday?..' things like checking...Oh Ok, so how are you feeling about that? It sounds like there is a lot going on is there one bit that's worrying you the most? ...or just a bit of validation..., 'your reaction makes sense'...'that sounds really tough, you must be exhausted!' Not advice and chipping in... not using 'I' statements. If someone wants advice or to hear about how you dealt with something they will usually ask.

See the thing is also, 'people' are not all the same and neither are all situations so no-one can give you an easy rulebook on how to do it - if only!

So for instance the reaction I would give would be different to a friend than I would one of my DC to a work colleague, and different again to a situation where I am dealing with/advising the person professionally, and it depends a lot on exactly what/why they are upset. Some people just want to talk about it and be heard (like some of the active listening tips above), some would like to hear your similar experiences, some want to see you sharing your own emotions and feeling angry or sad on their behalf, some want dispassionate practical advice, some want a 'kick up the arse' to do something about it. There's not always a simple way to tell which it is, I think doing the active listening part is usually the safest and if you are really doing a good job of focussing on them and reading their cues you can usually tell if they'd appreciate advice or need to have some questions asked to draw out what they are really saying or whatever. Hugs I find a tricky one as I'm very physically awkward myself so don't usually offer unless someone I'm very close with but again you can tell if that's something they really need by their body language and I usually start with the awkward shoulder pat and if they don't recoil in horror transition to 'full hug'

See the thing is also, 'people' are not all the same and neither are all situations so no-one can give you an easy rulebook on how to do it - if only!

Yes, I agree. Thanks to everyone who has responded too. It certainly illustrates this point.

It sounds like what you're expressing isn't empathy.... empathy definitely doesn't minimise.

Interesting point. The thing is I think sometimes people don't know how they want you to respond, they don't want the burden, they are caught up in their own reaction. So the cues they give out can be ones that change in the blink of an eye. Sometimes you might correctly recognise a pattern of behaviour so tailor your responses to the outcome which might not feel instantly comfortable to the person on the receiving end but will lead them to feel better in time. I still would define this as empathy, personally. Do others agree?

Of course, it's complicated we can all get it wrong. There are no rules, though so how can we judge?

The active listening is interesting. I don't think I always like being in the receiving end of this. It feels too passive. Sometimes I want to be challenged! Because I want what I am saying to be tested in terms of its validity.

I do, do active listening and have seen some people respond with pleasure to it. I'm not sure it's always a good thing - I worry sometimes that it seems to be a bit all 'surface pleasantries'. It's not really an honest exchange, just nods and smiles. Easy but too easy.

I agree with active listening.

people don't want ot know - I've beent here too
The rarely want to hear - I know what you are going through (becuase you have experienced it)
they usually do not want a solution.

What they want and need is to be HEARD.
To do that, you actually need to do very little. That is where active listening comes in.
Once they ahve been heard, then there is usually space to challenge, but only if you know them well enough.

The very best type of active listening does challenge, because it gently turns it back to you.

so, after a massive rant about how unreasonable a colleague has been, you might be able to say - and how do you feel about it now, now that you have had time to process what she said?
Or (if you know the person well enough) I can see why you are so upset, and I get it, but you know what, i think you might have been a bit hasty/over reacted. What do you think?

It is a skill though, and not many manage the balance. (which will vary from person to person anyway)

The very best type of active listening does challenge, because it gently turns it back to you.

so, after a massive rant about how unreasonable a colleague has been, you might be able to say - and how do you feel about it now, now that you have had time to process what she said?
Or (if you know the person well enough) I can see why you are so upset, and I get it, but you know what, i think you might have been a bit hasty/over reacted. What do you think?

Ah, yes. The timing issue. I can see how that would alter things. Sometimes I think there can be a miss match in processing speeds, sometimes processing detail. If one person 'jumps ahead' or another wants to dwell and analyse every fine detail I can see how there is a conflict there.

A missing link, I think.

@eyeseeyou

See the thing is also, 'people' are not all the same and neither are all situations so no-one can give you an easy rulebook on how to do it - if only!

Yes, I agree. Thanks to everyone who has responded too. It certainly illustrates this point.

It sounds like what you're expressing isn't empathy.... empathy definitely doesn't minimise.

Interesting point. The thing is I think sometimes people don't know how they want you to respond, they don't want the burden, they are caught up in their own reaction. So the cues they give out can be ones that change in the blink of an eye. Sometimes you might correctly recognise a pattern of behaviour so tailor your responses to the outcome which might not feel instantly comfortable to the person on the receiving end but will lead them to feel better in time. I still would define this as empathy, personally. Do others agree?

Of course, it's complicated we can all get it wrong. There are no rules, though so how can we judge?

I'm not sure I fully understand what you mean. Correct me if this is wrong, but to take a made up example, say a friend comes to you saying they feel really depressed, totally helpless and as though there's nothing they can do to feel better ever again. You have previously suffered with depression and recognise that feeling, and so you say to them that although you understand they feel that way, there are things that can help, and you encourage them to spend time outside/practice mindfulness/seek medical help as these things made you feel much better? Is that the kind of thing you mean by recognising a pattern of behaviour and tailoring a response to an outcome?

I wouldn't necessarily say that's empathy in itself, no, which is not to say it's the wrong/unkind thing to do either. Empathy to me is purely understanding and sympathising with their feelings which inherently includes an acknowledgement that their feelings are not your feelings and even if you've been in a similar position/had similar feelings yourself it's not the same thing they are feeling now. And although I think it's right to try and encourage and help people overcome their problems (and sometimes sharing what worked for you can be part of this), when someone is coming to you for emotional support you have to be super careful about jumping straight to an outcome/solutions - not to get gender politics-y about it but I think the latter is a particularly male trait (although women can do it too) and comes from a place where boys are taught and socialised that emotions are unhelpful barriers to achieving success and when someone has intense feelings the correct response to that is to help them supress those feelings and move towards a 'solution', which a lot of women in particular can feel as unempathetic or even unkind as a response, even if the intention isn't to do so.

So if I was a perfect person (which I'm not btw, I get this stuff wrong all the time) in my example above I might spend a long time simply listening to the person talk about how they feel, reflecting back what they've said, validating their feelings without imposing my own 'it sounds so difficult', 'that must be so sad for you' etc, perhaps if I was feeling brave offer a hug, and then only if the person seems receptive tentatively ask them 'what do you think you will do' and if the cues etc are right offer my own experience or advice. But perhaps the person would say themselves at that point 'I can see this is depression talking, I know what I need to do is XYZ' and then we could have a conversation more about what I could do to support that which would be much better than me just telling them XYZ will work, IFYSWIM? Or even if not and they are too deep in the situation to see it, I would still probably rather try and get them to that point by themselves by saying 'do you think your perception that it's impossible for things to change is accurate', 'do you really believe nothing could ever help you', 'what do you think is behind that feeling' kind of questions rather than just telling them what I think. But maybe some people would experience that as manipulative/armchair psychologist/really annoyingly mealy mouthed and say I should just say what I think and be honest soooo.... who knows?

I went on a parenting teenagers course that recommended reflective listening where you repeat what they said and maybe they’ll correct / modify or it will agree that you understood them.

Some people just want to let off steam, some people want advice (which they’ll probably ignore) however since I’ve been trying to do reflective listening it gives me extra time to try to work out they want.

In the past I have been very guilty of saying’yes that happened to me too I understand’ but it’s hard not to make it about me and I realise people don’t want that.

@maxelly, interesting take on this especially considering my earlier post about active listening. I understand what you are saying - I think the point about processing speeds and detail was an eureka point for me in this. I think how people process will really affect this. I like to sometimes check the validity of what I am saying by it being challenged. It reassures me. Whereas sometimes people want to have what they are saying simply validated. Yet I feel like this is too easy to fake and feel not listened to if never challenged.

@stealthninjamum, that's a useful technique there, thanks. It's interesting it al so fits in with how people process. I can see how hearing what you have said back at you could aid processing in that it encourages you to re- analyse what you have said further. Good if that's what is needed. However, if you are already caught up in a bit of analysis paralysis (my own particular nemesis) and dwelling upon things to which there is no straightforward solution sometimes you just have to move on and take a risk with the best course of action! So I can see there is balance in this too,

You sound very diagnostic and solution-focused, OP, which I don't think has anything at all to do with either empathy or sympathy -- are you confusing your own needs when you confide in someone with those of others, which may be entirely different?

Maybe you want other people to get you out of over-analysing paralysis by identifying a recurrent pattern of behaviour, or by challenging your thought processes, but that's certainly not true of everyone.

It would drive me mad, personally. On the rare occasions I want advice on a dilemma, I will specifically ask for it. On all other occasions, I am not asking the person I'm speaking to to diagnose, far less solve my situation/problem.

IME/IMO most people who think they are very empathetic just want to you all about themselves, about whatever you've been through they've suffered worse.

I've had a recent bereavement. The most helpful people are who say they'll be there and mean it, keep in touch even when you don't feel like making the effort, but are just "there" rather than wanting to fix you.

There's one woman who "understands" because of her own trauma and wants to talk about it constantly.

Which I realise males me sound very unempathetic but I only have so much emotional energy currently.

@Subulter,

You sound very diagnostic and solution-focused, OP, which I don't think has anything at all to do with either empathy or sympathy -- are you confusing your own needs when you confide in someone with those of others, which may be entirely different?

I can be that, I admit. I am aware I need to balance my own biases when being empathetic or sympathetic.

I can see where people have opposite biases therein there is a clash. If I either am seeking empathy or they are, from each other. So then, I am correct to 'suck up' my feelings of lack of engagement when doing the active listening bit and persevere with this. I know other people have thanked me for it/shown pleasure at it before - the worry that I am just saying what they want to hear/ nodding in the right places essentially going through the motions is just my own anxiety.

Which I realise males me sound very unempathetic but I only have so much emotional energy currently.

Emotional energy is definitely a consideration, I agree. Empathy can take effort! It's understandable at time we just can't muster up enough energy for it.

Exercising our capacity for empathy is not all bad, when we are ready, though. It means there is greater understanding so things are less likely to take by us surprise.

So then, I am correct to 'suck up' my feelings of lack of engagement when doing the active listening bit and persevere with this. I know other people have thanked me for it/shown pleasure at it before - the worry that I am just saying what they want to hear/ nodding in the right places essentially going through the motions is just my own anxiety.

What is it that you feel you should be doing in these scenarios, though? What would make you feel 'engaged' or not 'going through the motions'?

@Subulter

What is it that you feel you should be doing in these scenarios, though? What would make you feel 'engaged' or not 'going through the motions'

My earlier post covered this where I said,

"The active listening is interesting. I don't think I always like being in the receiving end of this. It feels too passive. Sometimes I want to be challenged!  Because I want what I am saying to be tested in terms of its validity.

I do, do active listening and have seen some people respond with pleasure to it. I'm not sure it's always a good thing - I worry sometimes that it seems to be a bit all 'surface pleasantries'. It's not really an honest exchange, just nods and smiles. Easy but too easy."

So from my perspective, I feel more listened to if questioned and challenged. So that's my experience. Because anyone can nod and put an appropriate expression on their face. I want engagement and what I am saying to be considered and thought about, tested.

But then I can be overly analytical! Funnily my DH really isn't and we balance each other out well! He jokes sometimes when I have to deal with someone ranting and tells me to just 'Think bland!', that is don't challenge or say something interesting!

But I get it, my own biases are not definitively correct and I have to keep reminding myself not everyone likes to analyse as much as me.

I'm currently reading 'Against Empathy: The Case For Rational Compassion' by Paul Bloom.
I haven't read all previous posts but in case it's not been mentioned, I think you might find it interesting @eyeseeyou

I think this is where the idea of 'not adding fuel to the fire' /'not giving something energy' comes in.

@FlySwatter, thanks for the recommendation, that does sound interesting. Is it similar to the idea of compassionate empathy (Versus cognitive or emotional empathy) ?

[quote eyeseeyou]**@FlySwatter, thanks for the recommendation, that does sound interesting. Is it similar to the idea of compassionate empathy (Versus cognitive or emotional empathy) ?[/quote]
Cognitive empathy is discussed for sure. I've only read a chapter or so and he's very keen to explain what bits of empathy he's not against. Sorry, was last night's bedtime reading and I can't yet articulate my thoughts about it. I think it'll be a worthwhile read though.
Partly its all semantics about what words actually mean, but certainly he's talking about compassion being more useful than people believing (or actually, I suppose) that they feel others people's pain. Empathy is not necessarily good as a person can use it to manipulate, whereas compassion generally has a kinder outcome. If empathy creates compassion that's ok. Etc, so far.

I've also read a book about active listening based on the Samaritans, and one on validation, though my kindle was left at work and I can't remember the titles or authors offhand. They are all thought provoking and useful reads, I think.

Sounds an interesting read, @FlySwatter. I agree with compassion being more useful than just sharing the pain. Because sometimes people need someone else to lean on when things are tough but if everyone is finding stuff too painful that becomes difficult.