BF2S Forums Empathy

Well, then think of it this way. It carries on because the ones who don't argue reasonably get a rise out of a response, even if it is in the form of a brick wall. If you don't acknowledge a response that you consider disrespectful, you'll have little reason to lower yourself to that level and they'll have little reason to press the issue.

Bingo, trollicane averted.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2010-05-23 19:40:50)

lowing wrote:

I rarely lower myself to that level. In fact, the vast majority of the time I address their posts with tolerance.

lol

what normally happens is everyone else gets pissed with you cos you fail to understand or even attempt to understand what other people are saying and wilfully misunderstand everyone to the point where they just say fuck you because you're not engaing in debate, you're just...yes...repeating yourself.

lowing wrote:

You yourself saw the type of person ruis was in the other thread, where he posted the same way toward you. So you really should stop acting as if I cause this, and hold those accountable for inflammatory posting, accountable. Because you can bet on one thing, I am not going to hold back my opinion just because it is unpopular to a bunch of govt. dependant socialists.

lowing you keep going on and on and on and on like a fucking endless broken record without ever being conciliatory or conceding points, indeed you ignore strong and valid points from others in order to continue saying the same thing again and again - often not pertinent to the thread (see thread on defence budget) - and engage in stupid behaviour you then accuse others of.

This thread is a perfect example of that. Sorry.

lowing wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

lowing wrote:

You say this as if, I am responding to myself, that I alone post 20 pages of thread. Why are you asking me this instead of the ones thatare actually posting 20 pages of "lowing bashing"? For the vast majority of my posts, I am really trying to engage in a serious debate, although harsh and void of any PC whatsoever, I enjoy a dabate with the bark left on. I do not start off insulting although to my shame a few in here have pissed me off enough that I have engaged in it. But I do not think you can deny that for the most part I am the level headed rational poster between me and the bashers, even if you disagree with what I post.

I'm also addressing them indirectly through you since you are pretty much the eye of the storm. By your own admission, while you may not start off insulting (all the time), you all too often get sucked into it, and it carries on for pages and pages. I'm not telling you to change your mind about your views, but there's got to be a cut off point, mutual or no, at some point into the thread before it becomes too obfuscated.

I have done nothing but stay on topic in this entire thread. I view myself more of the wagon being circled by the indians to be honest. Not the center of the storm. As I said, I want to engage in no PC debate, of the real world, not some peter pan ideology of never never land and what should be.

you and I seem to be able to carry on a dialog without insults, what is missing? Me, you, Turqouise, Varegg, etc all seem to be able to disagree with respect. What is the common factor other than a few of the obvious members absence?

I wasn't referring to this thread specifically, but more noting a general trend.

As for the last post... you'll find we've all been here for years upon years. Ruis et al haven't.

lowing wrote:

Spark wrote:

lowing wrote:

I have done nothing but stay on topic in this entire thread. I view myself more of the wagon being circled by the indians to be honest. Not the center of the storm. As I said, I want to engage in no PC debate, of the real world, not some peter pan ideology of never never land and what should be.

you and I seem to be able to carry on a dialog without insults, what is missing? Me, you, Turqouise, Varegg, etc all seem to be able to disagree with respect. What is the common factor other than a few of the obvious members absence?

I wasn't referring to this thread specifically, but more noting a general trend.

As for the last post... you'll find we've all been here for years upon years. Ruis et al haven't.

Although you and I have had our moments, I think in general there is a mutual respect between us, regardless as to our opinions on the world
You should have been added as an example actually. I enjoy engaging you to be honest.

lowing wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

You project far too much, you're making assumptions on things I haven't said.

I said I can empathise with the emotion people feel. I didn't say I do it all the time, I didn't actually pull up any of the gamut of human experience as an example. I said I can observe, question, listen and feel someone's story.

You're putting words into my mouth and then trying to argue against it. Very, very low form. I guess that's why you've picked that handle.

Jaekus, you have used the term empathy to describe what you do in dealing with people whose experiences you do not share. That is not empathy, it is sympathy. I did not assume you said that, you DID say that.

Actually he didn't say that, he said the exact same thing as I did some pages back ... sympathy and empathy are similar but not equal to eachother ...

lowing wrote:

If you did not experience the events, you can not empathize with the emotions people feel, you can ONLY sympathize with them. That is the one clear difference between the 2 words that has been found during all of the "research" .

This is your conclusion while the many sources and dictionaries says otherwise like pointed out several times ...

lowing wrote:

and just to reemphasize, this all started before you and the others chimed in, with Vareggs assertions that anyone that makes money and actually works to better their lives is cruel heartless and lacks a conscience. This is something I would have been taken to task over, and I think you know that.

This is also just your conclusion ... what I first wrote was obviously too easy to misunderstand hence why I rephrased myself but still you cling to what you think I said rather than what I did say ...

Never made a point out of capitalists in general being bad people just that when money means more than people etc etc ... I have explained that point very clearly several times after you brought it up the first time ...

After reading through the posts that was made while I was away this weekend I also see you tried to use the "lowing bashing" card ... can't honestly see the point of this, have never and will never engage in an argument with you just for the sake of bashing you or anyone else ...

Spark wrote:

You haven't been posting for 1100 days. Lurking does not count in my book.

lurking...lmao

so what I havven't been posting for that long. what frigging difference does it make? None? oh yeah that's right.

Spark wrote:

makes a huge difference, you're not actually contributing if you're not posting. you go off what other people say, you see only what you wish to see because you aren't directly involved. because you're not actually putting your points forward for scrutiny, so there is no credible reason to believe your opinion is at all valid if you don't post.

but...I am posting. so wtf are you on about?

none of us are 'directly involved'...this is an internet forum...

Varegg wrote:

lowing wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

You project far too much, you're making assumptions on things I haven't said.

I said I can empathise with the emotion people feel. I didn't say I do it all the time, I didn't actually pull up any of the gamut of human experience as an example. I said I can observe, question, listen and feel someone's story.

You're putting words into my mouth and then trying to argue against it. Very, very low form. I guess that's why you've picked that handle.

Jaekus, you have used the term empathy to describe what you do in dealing with people whose experiences you do not share. That is not empathy, it is sympathy. I did not assume you said that, you DID say that.

Actually he didn't say that, he said the exact same thing as I did some pages back ... sympathy and empathy are similar but not equal to eachother ...

lowing wrote:

If you did not experience the events, you can not empathize with the emotions people feel, you can ONLY sympathize with them. That is the one clear difference between the 2 words that has been found during all of the "research" .

This is your conclusion while the many sources and dictionaries says otherwise like pointed out several times ...

lowing wrote:

and just to reemphasize, this all started before you and the others chimed in, with Vareggs assertions that anyone that makes money and actually works to better their lives is cruel heartless and lacks a conscience. This is something I would have been taken to task over, and I think you know that.

This is also just your conclusion ... what I first wrote was obviously too easy to misunderstand hence why I rephrased myself but still you cling to what you think I said rather than what I did say ...

Never made a point out of capitalists in general being bad people just that when money means more than people etc etc ... I have explained that point very clearly several times after you brought it up the first time ...

After reading through the posts that was made while I was away this weekend I also see you tried to use the "lowing bashing" card ... can't honestly see the point of this, have never and will never engage in an argument with you just for the sake of bashing you or anyone else ...

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source … df9bf65cc0


sighhhhhhh
the end

Varegg wrote:

Your link comes up blank ??

link works for me.

anyway, google: difference between empathy and sympathy and get back with me.......................or don't

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

I know it seems like I've had a go at lowing for the past couple pages, but I wasn't kidding when I was saying I was also addressing the 'bashers' through the 'eye of the storm.' Once you aren't able to counter a lowing argument with a semblance of levelheadedness, that's when you should just quit replying and move on to the next discussion. It doesn't mean you have to concede, it's just a withdrawal.

But because so many people don't, and because lowing is a brick wall when it comes to how his mind is made up, the last word battles rage on until the thread has lost any meaning it once had.

fair point.

Varegg wrote:

lowing wrote:

Varegg wrote:

Your link comes up blank ??

link works for me.

anyway, google: difference between empathy and sympathy and get back with me.......................or don't

I don't have to use google to know the difference ... that's also explained in detail before, but since you insist I will have a go at it ... here goes:

Difference between sympathy and empathy 1

Difference between sympathy and empathy 2

Difference between sympathy and empathy 3

Was several more sources but they pretty much say the exact same as several of us have tried to explain to you lowing ...

In short

Sympathy: Feeling sorry for someone without taking active part.

Empathy: Feeling sorry for someone and taking active part aka sharing/understanding the feelings/emotions.

Not one of the sources says it's necessary to have experienced the same as the one you empathise with ... so the two emotions are related but not equal ... on another note collected from link 3 it says ...

The long version

Sympathy and empathy are separate terms with some very important distinctions. Sympathy and empathy are both acts of feeling, but with sympathy you feel for the person; you’re sorry for them or pity them, but you don’t specifically understand what they’re feeling. Sometimes we’re left with little choice but to feel sympathetic because we really can’t understand the plight or predicament of someone else. It takes imagination, work, or possibly a similar experience to get to empathy.

I highlighted the important part ... and colored a strange word in the highlighted part red ...

^^ All of this is the essence of what we have been trying to say for the last pages ...

1. Empathy on the other hand takes a little more imagination, work, or even similar situations to gain empathy for someone <-------from your first source.





2. "You feel empathy when you've "been there", and sympathy when you haven't." <---from your second source.



3. "The need for true empathy gives rise to many groups of people who are encountering huge losses. There are numerous “therapy” groups for battered women, rape victims, parents who have lost children, people undergoing divorce, children with significant illnesses. In such groups, people often have the opportunity to talk to others experiencing things in a very direct way.

In these settings, those suffering don’t get the sympathy of others, but instead get the empathy of others. There is often an implied understanding since all people in such a group are similarly circumstanced. Frequently, what a person in grief really needs to hear is “I’ve done that too," "I totally get what you’re saying," or "I had the exact same thoughts," from someone else: all expressions of empathy." <-------from your third source.


Bottom line Varegg, in order to have true empathy with a person you need to have experienced what they they are experiencing. Period. ( and your sources seem to back that up. Anything less is cheap talk,

Example. You claim empathy toward a person who just lost their 10 year old child, but when you leave their side, and go home to your own 10 year old child and laugh and play catch and eat dinner, or go to a movie, you are not truly empathizing because you have turned that emoption off once you leave and resume your own life, while the person who has lost a child, is still in deep grief mourning, loneliness, emptyness etc. and will remain so for the rest of their lives. There is no whay uo can understand the emotion of such a loss unless you have lost one. and quite frankly no one that has lost a child wants to hear how you know what they are going through, when you don't.

Last edited by lowing (2010-05-25 17:20:28)

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

http://wiki.guildwars.com/wiki/Empathy

Found it, guys.

Spark wrote:

you're not actually contributing if you're not posting.

In some cases, there is such a thing as contributing by NOT posting...

Touche

Varegg wrote:

lowing wrote:

Bottom line Varegg, in order to have true empathy with a person you need to have experienced what they they are experiencing. Period. ( and your sources seem to back that up. Anything less is cheap talk

There is no period about that lowing, that's the whole point ... you don't have to have had the same experience, it's a clear advantage but not a must ...

You are not empathizing with a person when you can turn your empathy on and off. in the example of the combat veteran you want to council him claiming empathy, however when your session is over, you move on to the next patient, or ya go home to laugh and play with the kids, while the veteran you just left is still living with his nightmares, guilt, visions,ghosts or whatever else is going through his mind. This is why claiming empathy is cheap talk, or non-existent for a person who does not share the combat veterans same experience. You simply can not be empathetic for say an hour, then switch it off, while you move on and he doesn't. That is not truly sharing in a persons grief, and is more closely related to posing than to empathy. Sympathizing is what you are doing.

That is the best I can do based on the sources I have provided and yours as well. If that is not good enough, then fine, call for empathy on something you know nothing about and try and convince a person that has lost a child that you "know what they are going through", when IN FACT you don't.

In the vast majority of sources, a shared experience or related experience, has been the common denominator . It is the yard stick that has separated sympathy and empathy. It is the one true difference between the 2 terms, and how you can deny that is beyond me.

Last edited by lowing (2010-05-26 02:10:00)