Empathy and compassion: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 6: Line 6:


===Empathy is impulsive. Compassion is deliberate.===
===Empathy is impulsive. Compassion is deliberate.===
Empathy is the impulse that makes you cry at ''Love Actually'', even while you see how cynically your emotions are being manipulated and how empty the film is.<ref>Purely hypothetical example. Totally.</ref> It doesn’t come from a rational place: it is not the output of a deliberative function.  
Empathy is the impulse that makes you cry at ''Love Actually'', even while you see how cynically your emotions are being manipulated and how empty the film is.<ref>Purely hypothetical example. Totally. The JC does not cry at crappy movies. Ever.</ref> It doesn’t come from a rational place: it is not the output of a deliberative function.  


Now, we can all have have doubts about homo sapiens’ capacity for logic at the best of times, but when you act based on ''empathy'' you are not even ''trying'' to be rational.
Now, we can all have have doubts about ''homo sapiens''’ capacity for logic at the best of times, but when a human acts out of ''empathy'' she is not even ''trying'' to be rational.


We like to think our leaders should be logical: slow, rather than fast to react, considerate of all positions and constituencies.  
We like to think our leaders ''should'' be rational:  
at least give it a go — and generally be slow, rather than fast to react, considerate of all positions and constituencies rather than impulsive. Unless there is a fight breaking out, best not to act on blind instinct.


Being ''instinctively'' empathetic is not necessarily fair, equitable or just. It comes from the monkey brain. It favours kin, familiarity, self-image and reinforces our prevailing values and worldview. It shoots without asking questions.
Being ''instinctively'' empathetic is not necessarily “kind”, nor fair, equitable or just. Empathy comes from the monkey brain. It doesn’t take time to reflect on whom one should empathise: it just does it, favouring kin, familiarity, tribe and self-identity.
 
Empathetic responses reinforce our own values and existing worldview. It shoots without asking questions.


===Empathy is divisive. Compassion is unifying.===
===Empathy is divisive. Compassion is unifying.===
To be empathetic is to walk a mile in someone else’s moccasins, to live her [[lived experience]]; to see the world from her [[standpoint]]. It is to ''take sides. ''This is something to value in your own mum. and the family dog, not in a leader.  
To be empathetic is to walk a mile in someone else’s moccasins; to live her [[lived experience]]; to see the world from her [[standpoint]]. It seeks no emotional distance:  It ''takes sides''. This is something to value in your own mum. and the family dog not in a community leader.
 
Leaders must be independent, strive to avoid having personal interests influencing their decisions, and should recuse themselves when they do.  


Leaders have to be independent, to have no interest in the matter, and recuse herself when she does. Leaders need sometimes to make decisions their subordinates might not like, and sometimes to arbitrate — to settle disputes between subordinates that at least one of them definitely will not like.
They must sometimes to make decisions their subordinates might not like. They must arbitrate, decide and settle disputes between subordinates that at least one of them definitely will not like. They can’t always be “kind”.


In our postmodern, morally relativistic times, the opportunities for leaders to take sides and get away with it — where there is a consensus good guy against an old school Bond villain antagonist — are rare indeed.  Jacinda Arden who branded herself an empathetic leader had a couple of rare opportunities with unexpected white supremacist terrorism, and murderous volcanoes. But even the early throes of pandemic proved harder to manage when it turned out she was responsible for multiple constituencies whose interests conflicted, and she couldn’t empathise with all of them.
In our postmodern, morally relativistic times, the opportunities for leaders to take sides and get away with it — where there is a consensus good guy against an old-school Bond villain — are rare indeed.  Jacinda Arden, who branded herself an empathetic leader, had a couple of rare opportunities: it is safe to side against white supremacists and volcanoes. But these are outliers. Most governance decisions are harder than that.


Since empathy is instinctive, we also tend to empathise with those closest to us, who was can most easily identify with.
===Empathy is inert. Compassion is active.===
===Empathy is inert. Compassion is active.===
Empathy is to join in, to wallow in someone else’s problem, to colonise it, without necessarily doing anything to alleviate it. Alleviating the problem — if there is a problem — brings the need for empathy to an end, so the truly committed empathist ''does not want the problem to end'', for that way lies the end of empathy.
Empathy is to join in, to wallow in someone else’s problem, to colonise it, without necessarily doing anything to alleviate it. Alleviating the problem — if there is a problem — brings the need for empathy to an end, so the truly committed empathist ''does not want the problem to end'', for that way lies the end of empathy.

Revision as of 15:11, 19 January 2023

JC sounds off on Management™
Index: Click to expand:
Tell me more
Sign up for our newsletter — or just get in touch: for ½ a weekly 🍺 you get to consult JC. Ask about it here.

To paraphrase Rasmus Hougaard,[1] to empathise is to join in with someone else’s suffering without necessarily doing anything to help. To be compassionate is to recognise suffering, but step back from it and ask “how can I help?”

We are not sure that “compassion” is quite as good an organising principle for leadership as “dispassion” but, as Hougaard frames it, it certainly works better than “empathy”.

Hougaard’s four reasons:

Empathy is impulsive. Compassion is deliberate.

Empathy is the impulse that makes you cry at Love Actually, even while you see how cynically your emotions are being manipulated and how empty the film is.[2] It doesn’t come from a rational place: it is not the output of a deliberative function.

Now, we can all have have doubts about homo sapiens’ capacity for logic at the best of times, but when a human acts out of empathy she is not even trying to be rational.

We like to think our leaders should be rational: at least give it a go — and generally be slow, rather than fast to react, considerate of all positions and constituencies rather than impulsive. Unless there is a fight breaking out, best not to act on blind instinct.

Being instinctively empathetic is not necessarily “kind”, nor fair, equitable or just. Empathy comes from the monkey brain. It doesn’t take time to reflect on whom one should empathise: it just does it, favouring kin, familiarity, tribe and self-identity.

Empathetic responses reinforce our own values and existing worldview. It shoots without asking questions.

Empathy is divisive. Compassion is unifying.

To be empathetic is to walk a mile in someone else’s moccasins; to live her lived experience; to see the world from her standpoint. It seeks no emotional distance: It takes sides. This is something to value in your own mum. and the family dog — not in a community leader.

Leaders must be independent, strive to avoid having personal interests influencing their decisions, and should recuse themselves when they do.

They must sometimes to make decisions their subordinates might not like. They must arbitrate, decide and settle disputes between subordinates that at least one of them definitely will not like. They can’t always be “kind”.

In our postmodern, morally relativistic times, the opportunities for leaders to take sides and get away with it — where there is a consensus good guy against an old-school Bond villain — are rare indeed. Jacinda Arden, who branded herself an empathetic leader, had a couple of rare opportunities: it is safe to side against white supremacists and volcanoes. But these are outliers. Most governance decisions are harder than that.

Empathy is inert. Compassion is active.

Empathy is to join in, to wallow in someone else’s problem, to colonise it, without necessarily doing anything to alleviate it. Alleviating the problem — if there is a problem — brings the need for empathy to an end, so the truly committed empathist does not want the problem to end, for that way lies the end of empathy.

We see this in a lot of “focus groups”. When the battle has been won, who wants to pack up the banners and go home?

Should we empathise with those who have no problems? It isn’t clear what this would involve — how do you empathise with Elon Musk? Would he care if you did — but the closest we can think of is sports allegiance. You know how much fun Manchester City fans are when they’re winning? The only time they’re worse is when they’re losing.

Empathy is draining. Compassion is regenerative.

Ram-raiding someone else’s grief is exhausting, and also a downer. Especially if, as should be the case for a true empathist, the unstated goal is to perpetuate it, and make room for a mutual sobfest.

Rather, thinking laterally about how to alleviate suffering — being constructive in the game of bucking people up and get them to look on the bright side — we fancy is rather energising.

See also

References

  1. Four Reasons Why Compassion Is Better For Humanity Than Empathy, Forbes,
  2. Purely hypothetical example. Totally. The JC does not cry at crappy movies. Ever.