Is it normal to feel completely indifferent to strangers' lives?

[AmusedTaupePlayer]

Hi all,
Bit of an odd one, but I’ve been thinking about this lately and wondering if anyone else relates.
I’ve noticed that unless someone is part of my life — family, close friends, maybe a few colleagues — I just don’t feel anything about what happens to them. Whether it’s good or bad. Someone winning the lottery, getting cancer, becoming homeless, whatever — I can understand it matters, but on a personal level, I feel nothing. Take homelessness — I get that it’s awful and I wouldn’t wish it on anyone, but emotionally, I don’t care. It doesn’t affect me. I don’t feel moved by it.
It’s not that I’m unkind or malicious. I just feel emotionally neutral about people I don’t know.
I suspect more people feel like this than let on, but whenever I’ve hinted at it, people react like I’m some sort of sociopath. So if it’s that common, why is it such a taboo to say out loud?
Is this just how emotional bandwidth works? Or is something off?
Genuinely curious — would love to know if others feel the same but just don’t talk about it.

Yes, that's what i mean. e.g. emma wants to run a race, makes people donate

Have a read of this from the World Economic Forum. It makes a very interesting read.
https://www.weforum.org/stories/2019/01/we-should-care-more-for-each-other-after-all-its-in-our-own-interest/

My health is fine and will get better once my income tax rates fall

The original post is quite specific in no emotions about anything or anyone ever outside their personal tight knit circle.

It's unusual.

To have no quiet reflection on remembrance day for all whom gave their lives so we have the free-ish society we have, to not have wanted Messi to lift the World Cup, there are many other times where emotions happy and sad just make you part of being human for a lot of people. The girls in Southport who never came home from a dance class and you feel nothing ever for anyone. Yes I think that's unusual, well it is in my life and I am pleased that it is unusual in my life. I am glad our family and friends have the happy emotions and passions for others and it makes our children better people having empathy and concern for others, if only in that they do not want to be the cause of upset to others. That's part of empathy. And the good times make like fun and enjoyable. To us it would be incredibly dull not having these emotions. And we don't know, or we don't connect with others who don't. I am guessing there are groups of friends who connect partly through not caring about anyone else outside their circle. But it is unusual in our lives.

Yes, and I'm glad you said it's normal! On reading several replies from those who feel nothing, I was beginning to wonder if I'm the freak.

It's not unusual but would suggest you lack empathy. My OH is the same. Whereas I sob at everything. Neither is right or wrong.

I think it's a spectrum, could be sociopathic or normal-cold.

Thinking about some of the mega rich who were moved to donate to charitable causes across history often they did so after feeling moved by other people's experiences,whether they personally knew the unfortunates or their struggle reminded them of that of someone else they know and like. So there is a personal link if even by humanity, recognising a look or a feeling. They have empathy which some people have more than others.

I would find it rude and maybe sociopathic to announce you don't care, keep that to yourself and make the right noise because if you don't you will be alienating yourself and upsetting people.

Maybe read more books to imagine how things feel from others perspective.

I do notice people lack empathy when they feel that nobody is noticing their pain so they numb that part and perhaps become bitter: nobody else cares if x happens to me so why should i care about them? It's a sort of an individualistic mindset.

I think that it is normal not to feel that much sadness or fear for people you don't have an emotional connection to.

That is completely different from not caring. There are people who never shed a tear about suffering children, and might even see doing so as self indulgent, but within their own moral landscape they recognise ethically that something bad is happening that they want to do something about. You can care in the sense that you take practical action without caring on an emotional level.

You are right to say 'it doesn't affect me' - we are egocentric creatures and our moral impulses often restrain callous behaviours or compel altruistic actions. Being able to accept that ambiguity within yourself is a sign of emotional health.

But you don't need to double down and say you don't care and question why anyone would as if it should be a social norm not to care about others.

Maybe you feel frustrated that people seem to be trying to squeeze emotions out of you that you just don't have. It's not their business. But you don't need to react to that by saying you don't care on any level since it sounds like you do care enough to give to charities - there is an altruistic action that you do in spite of an absence of emotional empathy.

Some people are much more helpful and care much more deeply just by recognising there is a problem and although it doesn't give them a dopamine hit to do it, they want to take action because things ought to be different in the world.

And then there are people who know suffering exists and they're completely comfortable with ignoring it and concentrating on their own interests. Clearly, those people are less kind and more egocentric. But they're everywhere. You're not uncovering a great truth by pointing that out.

Surely your friends already know you don't care about anything outside of your circle, hence why they are already your friends.

I would guess it's hard to fake forever but I guess it can be done, sounds exhausting though, wouldn't it be better to expand your circles to find people who like you for not caring?

Because most humans do respond with emotion to things, and it's a positive for society that they do. Compassion for fellow humans is party of what makes us able to interact with strangers.

Like everything there's a balance, and of course people are most deeply affected by what happens to their loved ones, but I think the extremes - caring to a debilitating extent and not caring at all - are both unhealthy.

What is it when it's the opposite? My mom would sob at other children's suffering.. performative crying yet neglect her own children ans cruely laugh at them when they are upset? I think it's better to be like op. Compassion fatigue in my old job made me less empathic but when i feel my cup is full i have more patience and compassion for strangers.

And then there are people who know suffering exists and they're completely comfortable with concentrating on their own interests. Clearly, those people are less kind and more egocentric. But they're everywhere. You're not uncovering done great truth by pointing that out. Look at Trump. where do i find such people?

OP are you saying you literally don't feel emotion for people who aren't part of your life? Or just people who are 'faceless'.
To use a PP example would there be a difference for you between being told 'children are starving' and seeing a video telling you about 'this little boy, called x, is dying because he is so malnourished'
To not have emotions around the former is probably normal, but to be cold to the latter is not common. That's exactly why charities do 'adopt a child's campaigns.
Do you think other people are pretending?

I wish I was a bit more like you. I feel far too deeply about things. I can cry with happiness if I hear someone win a huge amount of money on the radio, I can’t watch the news as it can make me so upset seeing people suffer, even down to seeing a pigeon be hit by a car whilst driving to work would ruin my day.

Are you asking me to direct you to your tribe?! They're everywhere.

I'm the same. Unless it's animals. :-I

Just say have own charities you support, that you budget for each year.

Don’t like workplace charity beggars.

I just don't understand the point of the question. You don't need to feel a true emptional connection to care about things outside of yourself or your loved ones.

I am I think like most people in that I don't really care what happens to a stranger and even if I do somehow feel an emotional reaction to their situation, it is often about me putting myself or a member of my family or close friends (who I do love) in their shoes and getting an echo for a few momements of how it might feel if I was in their place or if someone I loved was.

So it is not an emotional caring. For my family I want them to be happy and well because I love them, I just want them to be happy and content and safe because I love them and seeing them hurt is actaully emotionally painful to me

For strangers I don't feel that but I can feel empathy sometimes, dending on how their situation resonates with me and how willing I am to take a step back and place myself in their shoes. That can be somewhat emotional but it is usually very short lived and a shadow of how I feel about someone I love. Nevertheless, sometimes that moment of empathy drives me to want to help them.

This empathy is like most human traits a spectrum
Some people are very empathetic - but it comes with it's own issues as is clear from this article https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2022/apr/29/confessions-of-a-hyper-empath. And some people are like you op - at the other extreme with almost no empathy.

Like most things human, somewhere is the middle is probably the ideal place for human society to work best. Ideally you would work on your empathy a bit but since your are unlikely to care about what is best for society or groups of humans, I can see why you wouldn't bother.

I would also say that looking at the world, this aspect of your personality is really quite common and I suppose that on an individual level it is probably fine to be at this exteme end of lack of empathy but if the world only had people like that , it would be an even worse place than it already is

Another perspective …. Does any one care about you, your needs? You absolutely don’t need to spend your emotions money and time on every “needy” in the world.

Your job is to take care of you and yours.

Those poverty babies charity adverts on TV are so carefully curated to get certain sectors of society to donate & they all look like scammy to me. How do they pay for multi-minute adverts —— with your donations. The ads have to be long so that you pay to get them to stop making you feel bad for having fresh water in your tap. The tortured pet ones too - scammy practices.

Eff them all for manipulating my elderly aunt,

Well, I never donate to those things or people’s kids going to faff about in Zambia ‘building houses’, and I don’t hide it. I donate to charities I feel strongly about and that, as far as I can judge are doing good work effectively within their field, whether that’s in the soup kitchen down the road where I know some of the volunteers and know that it’s a no-frills very necessary operation, or an international organisation working in a war zone. I don’t need stories of individual suffering to donate in either situation. My tears make no difference. My money does. My signature on a petition or my lobbying of my MP may.

I know what you mean. I see on here sometimes people mentioning a distressing news story and how it made them cry. Never happens to me. I can logically see that something is awful but I don't feel anything inside. Sometimes I might feel some anger on behalf of a victim of something (in extreme circumstances) but I don't feel sad or upset.

It can be useful. I was a probation officer for many years and as such, had to work with a wide range of offenders, some of whom had done horrific things. Things that we would have to discuss in a calm way. Someone emotional couldn't do it. But I could maintain that degree of separation to do the job I needed to do.

I don't think it says anything good or bad about you. Just like lots of other human beings. The key is not to let it show as you will get judged. A 'Sorry to hear that' goes a long way and if you lived a hundred years ago you wouldn't even know what was going on apart from your own vicinity. We have it coming at us from all angles nowadays. Also, if we have been through hard times ourselves and got through it through sheer grit, I believe we can be a bit less tolerant. We are expected nowadays to listen to and be empathic at times to some quite ridiculous stories which could be dealt with on a personal level. I think you just need to choose what you support and leave the rest. If everyone did one good things or said one good thing each day, it would be a better world. Be that person and leave the rest to fate.

OP personally I'd prefer someone like you to someone who took other people's pain and made it about themselves or behaved like a grief vampire.

I think to an extent it's sensible, chances are that outside of your immediate circle and environment there is very little you can do to bring positive change. The people that weep and wail or "were literally crying and shaking" at some random persons suffering aren't helping to alleviate it either. Most of us are better at focusing on a small group or area to help, only a few are going to be great saviours.

Practically if your attitude is alienating people close to you I'd try to change your behaviour. For example at least take an interest if a friend is telling you something sad about someone you don't know, even if you don't feel sad you can still ask appropriate questions. I think "being yourself" only works to an extent, playing down the less likeable parts of yourself is a valid option.

I feel like that about friends and family too for the most part @AmusedTaupePlayer . Nobody knows that though as I play a good part.
There's something to be said for being shallow.

We live in a highly publicly emotionalised, highly empathetic world, OP, where we're all supposed to care about everyone and everything. We're bringing our kids (especially our girls) up to be super-sensitive and responsive to everyone. Social media is training them that everything matters and that being offended and a being victim gets them positive attention. Only the other day there was a feature on Radio 4 about how young people find punctuation in texts very threatening and can't deal with a full stop at the end of a text message — and the implication was that we all needed to stop using punctuation to save them from feeling bad. I don't care.

It's a psychological nightmare. We're not evolved for this. We used to live in small communities where we knew a lot of the people around us and where it was natural to feel something if someone we knew had an accident or whatever. But life was also bloody hard and tough and people couldn't afford to be over-empathetic. They had to look after themselves and their families. Now, we're asked to care about people whose suffering we can do nothing about and whose cause of suffering is nothing to do with us.

I'm sure it's got something to do with all the anxiety and MH issues society is now suffering from, and I'm sure the fact that older people seem to suffer less from anxiety is to do with the fact that we grew up in an age where we weren't supposed to care deeply and publicly about everything. I watched what happened with Princess Diana's death with horror.

We need to stop promoting the value of emotionalism and start teaching about stoicism. And we need to find a way of limiting the nightmare influence of social media.

There's a book called Toxic Empathy.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Toxic-Empathy-Progressives-Christian-Compassion/dp/0593541944

It's written by a Christian and is about how Christian compassion is abused and how the emphasis on empathy — being able to see another's point of view — often leaves people untethered and unsure where they stand. I'm not a Christian and so a lot of it felt uncomfortable, but it makes some general points which we all need to think about.