Well Jaekus ... welcome to the bf2s DST section, it will not get any better than this ... I promise
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Respect for you had long been lost from your very first posts in this forum. In fact read some of your first posts in this thread. Do not try to post on here lecturing about respect. It does not suit you.Jaekus wrote:
See, this is why people have issues with you as a poster.lowing wrote:
Sounds good, as long as we agree on the fact that whatever you are providing in empathy to your patient is not real and nothing more than a staged act of concern until their hour is up.Jaekus wrote:
Look, I'm basing what I'm saying upon personal experience and talking with professionals who, among many other facets of human function, have studied empathy as a part of their professional qualifications.
Nothing you say will change my mind on this, due to the above reasons. It appears you're not going to budge either. Agree to disagree. I'm pretty much done with this thread, so we'll leave it at that, shall we?
I'm happy to let it go, walk away from this and say "well we see things differently, we've shared each our views and now let's just leave it at that and show some respect".
It's clear you can't even show any measure of respect here, by having some final little dig.
Very bad form. Now you're just trolling.
And as usual Varegg has once again squarely hit the nail on the head.
regarding empathy from your source. "When one person understands the other's plight and at the same time maintains a healthy emotional distance, that's empathy"........Varegg wrote:
If you read more than just that one sentence you get a whole different picture ... that is if bothered clicking the link ...lowing wrote:
now how about that. Well I guess we will never figure it out if Jaekus's "professionals" can't.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Sympathy, on the other hand, is when one person feels the feelings of the sufferer as if he or she were the sufferer. -Jane Bolton, Psy.D., M.F.T
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/your-zesty-self/200909/stop-giving-me-empathy-it-makes-me-feel-bad
Sounds an awful lot like something this thread has endlessly but understandably defined as empathy.and ...Jane Bolton wrote:
Sympathy, on the other hand, is when one person feels the feelings of the sufferer as if he or she were the sufferer.
Sympathy is an automatic, involuntary response to another's emotional state. Babies are born with the ability to sympathize. Hospital nursery staffs know well the phenomenon in which one baby starts to cry and within moments all the babies are bawling.
In adulthood, if someone feels the sadness of another which then arouses their own unacceptable sadness, they may try to stop the sadness of the other so they won't have to feel the pain. This indicates not only lack of empathy for the self and other, but a lack of a healthy boundary as a separate, but relating, person.
Sympathy is thus shared suffering. Sympathy often seeks to console, while empathy seeks to understand. In sympathy, one's own past is brought in as in "I remember when ________(some past experience, i.e. "when MY father died") I was incapacitated for months!"
The person sympathizing may, over time, feel burdened or burned out. To look at the other side of the sympathy equation, the one being sympathized with may feel as if they are causing pain to the sympathizer, and feel guilty.Jane Bolton wrote:
Empathy requires much more of an advanced integration of thought and feeling. In empathy, no past is spoken about. The only thing present is the other person's experience, feelings, and story. As Kelly Bryson says in Don't Be Nice, Be Real: Balancing Passion For Self With Compassion For Others, "Relating to another's experience is about you. Empathizing is about them."
When one person understands the other's plight and at the same time maintains a healthy emotional distance, that's empathy. Active thinking is required to calm one's own possible emotional reactivity. The automatic impulse to judge and criticize must be put aside.
Empathy is concerned with a much higher order of human relationship and understanding: engaged detachment. In empathy, we "borrow" another's feelings to observe, feel, and understand them, but not to take them onto ourselves. By being a participant-observer, we come to understand how the other person feels. An empathetic observer enters into the equation to be with the other's experience, and then removes him/herself to think about and to verbalize.
Since the empathizer is not taking the other's feelings personally, the empathizer does not feel that they have "caused" the other's feelings and thus does not react with anger, shame or guilt.
Now, how can you understand the others plight without knowing or even comprehending what they are going through, and how can you begin to comprehend what they are going through, unless you have gone through something similar? The word "UNDERSTAND" is prevalent in that entire explanation. I feel you can not truly understand, or comprehend unless you can relate, you can not truly relate unless you have experienced.
I understand what you are saying, but the key word is "truly", just because you say it, and pretend you are hurting for the purposes of conciliation does not mean you truly know what the other person is feeling, I guess for no other reason, we are not truly empathic. This is why I call it cheap talk unless you have been there.
When Jaekus is in a counciling session with a person who has lost a child, for example. He can say whatever he wants, he can talk all he wants, he can see them through their crisis, but at the end of the day, when it is all done and said, all he did was talk without any reference or experience to draw his words from. That is going through the motions of emapthy or sympathy, whatever you want to call it, but it is still nothing but talk and certainly not empathic.
If you have to ask, you'll never know.
That is exactly right!! If we gotta ask we will never know.Jaekus wrote:
If you have to ask, you'll never know.
Because we are not empaths. and that is the point.
Last edited by lowing (2010-05-27 14:57:48)
Look mate, you clearly don't understand. That's why you keep posting the same tired and constantly refuted argument. You're talking about a topic you clearly have little knowledge about, whilst I do this as my work, and receive regular training to improve my standard of work (we all do at my workplace).
When you were a kid, and your parents read you a story before you went to sleep, you closed your eyes and imagined you were in the story. You felt the emotions of the characters and to a degree you understood their plight. You don't need to break into a bear family's house and eat their porridge and sleep in their bed to understand what it would be like to feel fear as you were woken from your slumber because you can empathise.
As an adult, if someone tells you of something that happened to them, you don't need to directly experience it to UNDERSTAND their feelings of loss, sadness, anxiety, remorse, hope, hopelessness, happiness, lack of motivation etc. etc. etc. because if I have a conversation with someone about their experiences and reply my understanding of the situation verbally back to them and they say "yes, that's exactly what it's like", that's an expression of empathy at work.
You may call it cheap talk, but again you clearly don't understand at all what I'm saying here anyway so it doesn't bother me. The people we work with are very grateful for what we do. I don't need a mental illness to understand how isolating it can be. I can't understand the EXPERIENCE of a lot of mental illness, but the topic isn't about experience, it's about empathy.
You can believe whatever you like and confuse empathy with experience and sympathy, that's your prerogative. You can also come up with all the hypothetical scenarios you like to consider that somehow bolstering your argument. But an imagined scenario really doesn't hold any water when I've already cited actual situations I've been in as examples of empathy. If this were the other way around and I was dreaming up scenarios whilst you were recounting actual life situations to make your point, you'd probably accuse me of trolling or worse.
I've been very patient with you, but it's wearing thin.
When you were a kid, and your parents read you a story before you went to sleep, you closed your eyes and imagined you were in the story. You felt the emotions of the characters and to a degree you understood their plight. You don't need to break into a bear family's house and eat their porridge and sleep in their bed to understand what it would be like to feel fear as you were woken from your slumber because you can empathise.
As an adult, if someone tells you of something that happened to them, you don't need to directly experience it to UNDERSTAND their feelings of loss, sadness, anxiety, remorse, hope, hopelessness, happiness, lack of motivation etc. etc. etc. because if I have a conversation with someone about their experiences and reply my understanding of the situation verbally back to them and they say "yes, that's exactly what it's like", that's an expression of empathy at work.
You may call it cheap talk, but again you clearly don't understand at all what I'm saying here anyway so it doesn't bother me. The people we work with are very grateful for what we do. I don't need a mental illness to understand how isolating it can be. I can't understand the EXPERIENCE of a lot of mental illness, but the topic isn't about experience, it's about empathy.
You can believe whatever you like and confuse empathy with experience and sympathy, that's your prerogative. You can also come up with all the hypothetical scenarios you like to consider that somehow bolstering your argument. But an imagined scenario really doesn't hold any water when I've already cited actual situations I've been in as examples of empathy. If this were the other way around and I was dreaming up scenarios whilst you were recounting actual life situations to make your point, you'd probably accuse me of trolling or worse.
I've been very patient with you, but it's wearing thin.
and you can claim empathic abilities all you want. Fact is you are not an empath and as such you have nothing more than "training", a script and a checklist to go by. Maybe the word that is missing is sincerity. You are not sincere in your words, you are saying what you are "trained" to say given a certain circumstance, then you bill them and send them home while you yell "NEXT". Again this is not empathy, and you are not an empath. It is cheap talk. Well maybe not so cheap, how much do you charge a patient for your empathic abilities?Jaekus wrote:
Look mate, you clearly don't understand. That's why you keep posting the same tired and constantly refuted argument. You're talking about a topic you clearly have little knowledge about, whilst I do this as my work, and receive regular training to improve my standard of work (we all do at my workplace).
When you were a kid, and your parents read you a story before you went to sleep, you closed your eyes and imagined you were in the story. You felt the emotions of the characters and to a degree you understood their plight. You don't need to break into a bear family's house and eat their porridge and sleep in their bed to understand what it would be like to feel fear as you were woken from your slumber because you can empathise.
As an adult, if someone tells you of something that happened to them, you don't need to directly experience it to UNDERSTAND their feelings of loss, sadness, anxiety, remorse, hope, hopelessness, happiness, lack of motivation etc. etc. etc. because if I have a conversation with someone about their experiences and reply my understanding of the situation verbally back to them and they say "yes, that's exactly what it's like", that's an expression of empathy at work.
You may call it cheap talk, but again you clearly don't understand at all what I'm saying here anyway so it doesn't bother me. The people we work with are very grateful for what we do. I don't need a mental illness to understand how isolating it can be. I can't understand the EXPERIENCE of a lot of mental illness, but the topic isn't about experience, it's about empathy.
You can believe whatever you like and confuse empathy with experience and sympathy, that's your prerogative. You can also come up with all the hypothetical scenarios you like to consider that somehow bolstering your argument. But an imagined scenario really doesn't hold any water when I've already cited actual situations I've been in as examples of empathy. If this were the other way around and I was dreaming up scenarios whilst you were recounting actual life situations to make your point, you'd probably accuse me of trolling or worse.
I've been very patient with you, but it's wearing thin.
losing a child, a combat veteran and a sole survivor of a plane crash, which one is a made up scenario and has not actually happened or in need of "real" counseling?
If you loose patience with someone you are talking to over the internet, I doubt your abilities to deal with people laying down on your couch. Or that easier because you have control over them?
Last edited by lowing (2010-05-27 15:13:31)
I lose patience when someone clearly can't read. Where did I mention the word "counsellor"?
You think you're making a point, you're merely displaying pigheaded ignorance.
This whole thread reminds me of the few times I've tried to teach rhythm to music students who can't even hold a beat. The only difference is they were willing to explore a new idea.
You think you're making a point, you're merely displaying pigheaded ignorance.
This whole thread reminds me of the few times I've tried to teach rhythm to music students who can't even hold a beat. The only difference is they were willing to explore a new idea.
You mean you are not a counsellor? What are you then, where you are sent to be trained to be an empath?Jaekus wrote:
I lose patience when someone clearly can't read. Where did I mention the word "counsellor"?
You think you're making a point, you're merely displaying pigheaded ignorance.
This whole thread reminds me of the few times I've tried to teach rhythm to music students who can't even hold a beat. The only difference is they were willing to explore a new idea.
Go back and read a few pages, I've said it at least twice now.
Empath lol, it's just normal human function tbh.
Empath lol, it's just normal human function tbh.
Can't be bothered, too much has been posted for me to go digging, if you don't want to tell me, I promise I can live with it.Jaekus wrote:
Go back and read a few pages, I've said it at least twice now.
Empath lol, it's just normal human function tbh.
No, what is normal human function, is to PROJECT a sense that you are feeling and know what the person is going through. Fact is, you don't. Although at the prices of "honest empathy" per hour, maybe you do. Otherwise cheap talk is quite expensive I hear.
So the debate here has gone from the meaning of empathy, to the meaning of "honest empathy". Interesting.lowing wrote:
Can't be bothered, too much has been posted for me to go digging, if you don't want to tell me, I promise I can live with it.Jaekus wrote:
Go back and read a few pages, I've said it at least twice now.
Empath lol, it's just normal human function tbh.
No, what is normal human function, is to PROJECT a sense that you are feeling and know what the person is going through. Fact is, you don't. Although at the prices of "honest empathy" per hour, maybe you do. Otherwise cheap talk is quite expensive I hear.
Yup, like a dumb ass I was speaking of honest empathy, and not the kind you charge people an hour for. It does not require experience or knowledge just a list of shit you are "trained" to tell someone. In fact I think I made this distinction, I called it cheap talk. but I guess we shoulda cleared that up earlier.nlsme1 wrote:
So the debate here has gone from the meaning of empathy, to the meaning of "honest empathy". Interesting.lowing wrote:
Can't be bothered, too much has been posted for me to go digging, if you don't want to tell me, I promise I can live with it.Jaekus wrote:
Go back and read a few pages, I've said it at least twice now.
Empath lol, it's just normal human function tbh.
No, what is normal human function, is to PROJECT a sense that you are feeling and know what the person is going through. Fact is, you don't. Although at the prices of "honest empathy" per hour, maybe you do. Otherwise cheap talk is quite expensive I hear.
Last edited by lowing (2010-05-27 16:25:18)
It wasn't my intention to take one sentence out of context, but sympathy and empathy are not the same thing.Varegg wrote:
If you read more than just that one sentence you get a whole different picture ... that is if bothered clicking the link ...lowing wrote:
now how about that. Well I guess we will never figure it out if Jaekus's "professionals" can't.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Sympathy, on the other hand, is when one person feels the feelings of the sufferer as if he or she were the sufferer. -Jane Bolton, Psy.D., M.F.T
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/your-zesty-self/200909/stop-giving-me-empathy-it-makes-me-feel-bad
Sounds an awful lot like something this thread has endlessly but understandably defined as empathy.and ...Jane Bolton wrote:
Sympathy, on the other hand, is when one person feels the feelings of the sufferer as if he or she were the sufferer.
Sympathy is an automatic, involuntary response to another's emotional state. Babies are born with the ability to sympathize. Hospital nursery staffs know well the phenomenon in which one baby starts to cry and within moments all the babies are bawling.
In adulthood, if someone feels the sadness of another which then arouses their own unacceptable sadness, they may try to stop the sadness of the other so they won't have to feel the pain. This indicates not only lack of empathy for the self and other, but a lack of a healthy boundary as a separate, but relating, person.
Sympathy is thus shared suffering. Sympathy often seeks to console, while empathy seeks to understand. In sympathy, one's own past is brought in as in "I remember when ________(some past experience, i.e. "when MY father died") I was incapacitated for months!"
The person sympathizing may, over time, feel burdened or burned out. To look at the other side of the sympathy equation, the one being sympathized with may feel as if they are causing pain to the sympathizer, and feel guilty.Jane Bolton wrote:
Empathy requires much more of an advanced integration of thought and feeling. In empathy, no past is spoken about. The only thing present is the other person's experience, feelings, and story. As Kelly Bryson says in Don't Be Nice, Be Real: Balancing Passion For Self With Compassion For Others, "Relating to another's experience is about you. Empathizing is about them."
When one person understands the other's plight and at the same time maintains a healthy emotional distance, that's empathy. Active thinking is required to calm one's own possible emotional reactivity. The automatic impulse to judge and criticize must be put aside.
Empathy is concerned with a much higher order of human relationship and understanding: engaged detachment. In empathy, we "borrow" another's feelings to observe, feel, and understand them, but not to take them onto ourselves. By being a participant-observer, we come to understand how the other person feels. An empathetic observer enters into the equation to be with the other's experience, and then removes him/herself to think about and to verbalize.
Since the empathizer is not taking the other's feelings personally, the empathizer does not feel that they have "caused" the other's feelings and thus does not react with anger, shame or guilt.
Main fact here is you don't know what you're talking about, and clearly haven't read enough to be presenting the attitude that you're an authority on this subject.lowing wrote:
Yup, like a dumb ass I was speaking of honest empathy, and not the kind you charge people an hour for. It does not require experience or knowledge just a list of shit you are "trained" to tell someone. In fact I think I made this distinction, I called it cheap talk. but I guess we shoulda cleared that up earlier.nlsme1 wrote:
So the debate here has gone from the meaning of empathy, to the meaning of "honest empathy". Interesting.lowing wrote:
Can't be bothered, too much has been posted for me to go digging, if you don't want to tell me, I promise I can live with it.
No, what is normal human function, is to PROJECT a sense that you are feeling and know what the person is going through. Fact is, you don't. Although at the prices of "honest empathy" per hour, maybe you do. Otherwise cheap talk is quite expensive I hear.
I don't know fuck all about politics in the US. See me posting in those threads? No. Maybe you should heed my advice and do likewise with this one.
Nobody claimed they are the same thing either, related and similar but with distinct differencesunnamednewbie13 wrote:
It wasn't my intention to take one sentence out of context, but sympathy and empathy are not the same thing.
@lowing: We are not discussing true or regular empathy, I get your point that it takes way more to feel empathic than sympathic ... we all get that point ... but when you claim that's it's close to impossible to be empathic that is stretching it ... sometimes it's easy to be empathic and sometimes it's close to impossible or even impossible ... of course it helps having a similar or identical experience but in most cases it really is enough just to try to understand ... one can also be partially empathic ... it's a very diverse subject and I do understand your opinions about it but you are when it comes to the definition of it only partially right ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
That's funny cos earlier you said you had to have the same experience and now you're saying it just has to be something similar. Hmmm. How odd.lowing wrote:
how can you begin to comprehend what they are going through, unless you have gone through something similar?
Hypocrite.lowing wrote:
Respect for you had long been lost from your very first posts in this forum. In fact read some of your first posts in this thread. Do not try to post on here lecturing about respect. It does not suit you.
No the main fact here is, YOU don't know what you are talking about, YOU are just "trained" as to what to say to project empathy. when really after their hour is up you are done.Jaekus wrote:
Main fact here is you don't know what you're talking about, and clearly haven't read enough to be presenting the attitude that you're an authority on this subject.lowing wrote:
Yup, like a dumb ass I was speaking of honest empathy, and not the kind you charge people an hour for. It does not require experience or knowledge just a list of shit you are "trained" to tell someone. In fact I think I made this distinction, I called it cheap talk. but I guess we shoulda cleared that up earlier.nlsme1 wrote:
So the debate here has gone from the meaning of empathy, to the meaning of "honest empathy". Interesting.
I don't know fuck all about politics in the US. See me posting in those threads? No. Maybe you should heed my advice and do likewise with this one.
I didn't even say I was a counsellor, you did. How about you go back and re-read this thread to get a better idea what's going on here.
Because until then it's plain to see you can't read other people's posts properly, let alone understand what empathy means.
Because until then it's plain to see you can't read other people's posts properly, let alone understand what empathy means.
I do appreciate your trying to meet me half way, I really do, however, you say distinct differences, then you cloud those differences with shades of grey. Which is it? If empathy is distinctly different than symapthy, then there is no grey area. Empathy means you hurt WITH the person, symapthy means you hurt FOR the person. Simplified I know, but if we agree here then, You simply can not hurt WITH a person SINCERELY, if you have not experienced the pain for yourself. Everything else is just smoke an mirrors bullshit cheap ass talk, regardless if you actually helped the person. If you did, fantastic, but you did not do it by hurting WITH them.Varegg wrote:
Nobody claimed they are the same thing either, related and similar but with distinct differencesunnamednewbie13 wrote:
It wasn't my intention to take one sentence out of context, but sympathy and empathy are not the same thing.
@lowing: We are not discussing true or regular empathy, I get your point that it takes way more to feel empathic than sympathic ... we all get that point ... but when you claim that's it's close to impossible to be empathic that is stretching it ... sometimes it's easy to be empathic and sometimes it's close to impossible or even impossible ... of course it helps having a similar or identical experience but in most cases it really is enough just to try to understand ... one can also be partially empathic ... it's a very diverse subject and I do understand your opinions about it but you are when it comes to the definition of it only partially right ...
You have lead me to believe you were some sort of counselor, if you are not then wtf are ya? It is simpler for me to ask than to dig through this thread to find it. If you do not want to tell me, then so be it. I may not know what it is, but i do know what it isn't, and it ISN'T pretending you have a fuckin clue about someone elses pain for a 100 bucks an hour.Jaekus wrote:
I didn't even say I was a counsellor, you did. How about you go back and re-read this thread to get a better idea what's going on here.
Because until then it's plain to see you can't read other people's posts properly, let alone understand what empathy means.
Last edited by lowing (2010-05-28 06:42:11)
Sorry, but you don't understand empathy and you've displayed some pretty sub par reading skills to engage in this argument. When you do a bit more reading you'll be able to contribute something worthwhile to the discussion.
Well that's the fact about emotions lowing, they are not black or white ... they are different shades of grey ...lowing wrote:
I do appreciate your trying to meet me half way, I really do, however, you say distinct differences, then you cloud those differences with shades of grey. Which is it? If empathy is distinctly different than symapthy, then there is no grey area. Empathy means you hurt WITH the person, symapthy means you hurt FOR the person. Simplified I know, but if we agree here then, You simply can not hurt WITH a person SINCERELY, if you have not experienced the pain for yourself. Everything else is just smoke an mirrors bullshit cheap ass talk, regardless if you actually helped the person. If you did, fantastic, but you did not do it by hurting WITH them.Varegg wrote:
Nobody claimed they are the same thing either, related and similar but with distinct differencesunnamednewbie13 wrote:
It wasn't my intention to take one sentence out of context, but sympathy and empathy are not the same thing.
@lowing: We are not discussing true or regular empathy, I get your point that it takes way more to feel empathic than sympathic ... we all get that point ... but when you claim that's it's close to impossible to be empathic that is stretching it ... sometimes it's easy to be empathic and sometimes it's close to impossible or even impossible ... of course it helps having a similar or identical experience but in most cases it really is enough just to try to understand ... one can also be partially empathic ... it's a very diverse subject and I do understand your opinions about it but you are when it comes to the definition of it only partially right ...
Goes for empathy, sympathy, pity, happy, sad etc etc ... and I'm not meeting you half way tbh ... just my billionth attempt at rephrasing the explanation so you might get it ... empathy(and all other emotions) is not an emotion you can turn on and off as it pleases you ... it depends on the situation how it all comes into play ...
I don't feel happy because I'm supposed to or it is expected ... I feel happy because an event triggered happiness ... maybe because I won the lottery and I feel very happy, or maybe because I just witnessed the birth of my first baby and I feel like the happiest guy on the planet ...
So if happiness can have different shades so can empathy right?
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
Because empathy, is not an emotion. You are simply wrong to say empathy is an emotion along with happy sad etc....You either empathize in the context of the experience, or you do not. and Jaekus, since we are not talking about PROJECTING the illusion empathy, and we are talking about truly emapthizing, talking shit as if you had a clue as to what the other person is going through, ya know, how you were "trained" does not count.Varegg wrote:
Well that's the fact about emotions lowing, they are not black or white ... they are different shades of grey ...lowing wrote:
I do appreciate your trying to meet me half way, I really do, however, you say distinct differences, then you cloud those differences with shades of grey. Which is it? If empathy is distinctly different than symapthy, then there is no grey area. Empathy means you hurt WITH the person, symapthy means you hurt FOR the person. Simplified I know, but if we agree here then, You simply can not hurt WITH a person SINCERELY, if you have not experienced the pain for yourself. Everything else is just smoke an mirrors bullshit cheap ass talk, regardless if you actually helped the person. If you did, fantastic, but you did not do it by hurting WITH them.Varegg wrote:
Nobody claimed they are the same thing either, related and similar but with distinct differences
@lowing: We are not discussing true or regular empathy, I get your point that it takes way more to feel empathic than sympathic ... we all get that point ... but when you claim that's it's close to impossible to be empathic that is stretching it ... sometimes it's easy to be empathic and sometimes it's close to impossible or even impossible ... of course it helps having a similar or identical experience but in most cases it really is enough just to try to understand ... one can also be partially empathic ... it's a very diverse subject and I do understand your opinions about it but you are when it comes to the definition of it only partially right ...
Goes for empathy, sympathy, pity, happy, sad etc etc ... and I'm not meeting you half way tbh ... just my billionth attempt at rephrasing the explanation so you might get it ... empathy(and all other emotions) is not an emotion you can turn on and off as it pleases you ... it depends on the situation how it all comes into play ...
I don't feel happy because I'm supposed to or it is expected ... I feel happy because an event triggered happiness ... maybe because I won the lottery and I feel very happy, or maybe because I just witnessed the birth of my first baby and I feel like the happiest guy on the planet ...
So if happiness can have different shades so can empathy right?
Source: http://www.dailygut.com/?i=4609
dailygut wrote:
So according to new research, today's college students are 40 percent less empathetic than kids their age thirty years ago.
The students are now less likely to agree with statements like, "I sometimes try to understand my friends better by imagining how things look from their perspective," "I often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me," and "Greg Gutfeld's new book, 'The Bible of Unspeakable Truths,' is supersexyawesome."
But look, the study is half right. Empathy has taken a hit, but it hasn't evaporated - it's just been misplaced. Empathy has shifted from people who matter, to abstractions that don't.
I blame parents and teachers who let toxic strains of feel-good self-esteem and phony sentimentality invade their homes and classrooms. The end result: people thinking it's cooler to care for strangers than their own families. It's okay to divorce your wife of twenty years, as long as you volunteer at the homeless shelter. You owe thousands in rent to your roommate, but no worries: you helped build a latrine in Peru. This new self-love created a driving hunger for recognition - and your caring soul lets you be a jerk to the people who matter.
And now it's egged on by the web and it's infectious blanket of social networking - which creates an illusory sense of intimacy that was once sated by the real intimacy of a neighborhood.
You have people paying more attention to a stranger across the globe, than their aging mother. Thank God her nurse isn't on Twitter, or granny would have no one to talk to.
In the new egalitarianism, you must forget the concentric circles of real people around you. And you shouldn't love your parents more than any one else. And, really, why should your money go to feeding your offspring, when the world's a mess? We're all in this together!
Even if I've never been to Greece.
Although I loved "Mama Mia."
And if you disagree with me, you're a racist homophobe made of cat poop.