Empathy vs. Sympathy vs. File Not Found

When we say we want a partner to demonstrate empathy, is perhaps what we really mean  sympathy?

From Dictionary.com

em·pa·thy

1.  the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.
2.  the imaginative ascribing to an object, as a natural object or work of art, feelings or attitudes present in oneself. By means of empathy, a great painting becomes a mirror of the self.

sym·pa·thy

1.  harmony of agreement in feeling, as between persons or on the part of one person with respect to another.
2.  the harmony of feeling naturally existing between persons of like tastes or opinion of congenial dispositions.
3. the fact or power of sharing the feelings of another, especially in sorrow or trouble; fellow feeling, compassion, or commiseration.
4.  sympathies
    a.  feelings or impulses of compassion.
    b.  feelings of favor, support or loyalty: It's hard to tell where your sympathies lie.
5.  favorable or approving accord; favor or approval: He viewed the plan with sympathy and publicly backed it.

The point has been made by some of my friends battling OCPD is that it's not that they necessarily lack empathy (though sometimes they do). In fact, when someone they love is hurting, they are often all knotted up inside, hurting with and for their partner, but often, none of that shows on the outside.

Spock (Photo credit: Tram Painter)

(Others do state they feel little to nothing for others inside. Mr. Spock is their role model; they take pride in working off a pure logic, no emotions model of behavior.)

It's not really fair to expect another person to be a mind-reader and to know what we need, especially if we know or suspect s/he has trouble "connecting" with emotions, let alone ours.  One spouse shared that when she is sick with a cold or the flu, what she wants is to be periodically checked on, for her partner to offer to bring her water or juice or soup or tissue. Her husband wants to be left the hell alone, just let him go to bed, close the door, and don't bother him.

So, until they actually discussed this, they were each irritating the hell out of one another. The wife felt unloved and neglected, the husband annoyed by her solicitousness.  "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is an excellent rule of thumb, but sometimes it requires some fine-tuning.

Sometimes the hugs need to be coached.

 

I became very good at "coaching my hugs," communicating my needs to my (now) ex. After kissing him hello and expressing how glad I was to see him, I might specifically say to him, "I had a really miserable day at work today.  Can I bend your ear for 15 minutes and just vent? I don't need solutions, just to let off steam. And a big hug afterwards, maybe a back rub."  What I would receive might be:

a.  "Sure, can I make you a drink first while you change out of your work clothes?"* Followed by decent listening, and a hug - sometimes good, sometimes Sheldon-style. (But never, ever the back rub. Back rubs are icky.)
b.  "You think you had a hard day? Listen to this..."
c.  Allowed to begin, but interrupted five minutes into my rant by his work horror stories
d.  Interrupted by advice, "I can't believe you put up with that! You should just tell that client to stick it up their ass..."
e.  "Well, my day didn't start off very well, either, because somebody forgot to wash her cereal bowl, like I have time to clean up after other people all day long."

 *the "change out of one's work clothes" issue was a big deal to him - the idea of relaxing and eating dinner before changing clothes was unthinkable.  Now that I'm on my own, sometimes I change, and sometimes I don't, and if I spill food on my work clothes, I... wash them. What a concept!

Empathy (software) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I don't think the problem, in b-d, above, was that he wasn't feeling empathy - clearly, he was emotionally connecting with my "hard day at work" meme.  But instead of giving me the sympathy and support I had asked for, he often springboarded into his own head and his own needs.

On a side note, what he never, ever initiated was negotiation:

a.  "Honey, I am hungry and grouchy - can we postpone your rant till after dinner when I can listen better?"
b.  "Yes, but can we flip a coin, winner goes first, loser goes second? Because I need to vent about my day, too."

In other posts, I've talked about the all-or-nothing, black-or-white nature of disordered thinking, how the idea that people could meet in the middle and both could get their needs met, was something he could only grasp in theory, not in practice. Either it was my way or his way, rarely our way.


One issue that has repeatedly surfaced is lack of support for partners or children of (many, not all) OCPD'rs in a health crisis emergency situation, and not simply because of differing expectations. When I was ill, or experiencing some health scares, my ex refused to come with me to my doctor's appointment, though I invited him and told him it would be extremely helpful to me.

One of my sweet friend Sid's last blog posts included this:

I had a medical procedure, and my doctor scheduled a follow-up appointment on a Thursday. A Thursday where my sister and her family would be visiting my parents' one hour south of where I live.

As I'm often wont to do, I decided to shove "all of my crap into one bag" and go into work that day, go to my follow-up appointment, take Friday off, and hop on the train to visit with my family for the weekend.

First, I look at train schedules. I have two options: Amtrak which goes straight through but the train station is a slight drive south of my folks' home, or Metrolink which is closer to their home but I'd have to change trains.

No decision: Amtrak.

Greg felt differently, however.

G:  You are SO selfish! Now your parents have to go out of their way to get you!

S:  They won't mind.

G: And Metrolink is a few dollars cheaper!

S:  Yes it is.  Could you give me a ride to the station after my doctor's appointment?

G:  Absolutely not. Not if you're taking Amtrak. So selfish, Sid.

This went on for several hours, for a train ride he wasn't taking.

In preparation for the appointment, Greg often reminds me to ask such-and-such of the doctor. I usually ask the questions and share the answers with him, but I never seem to ask it right, or enough, etc. Big point of contention for him almost every time.

S:  If you do take me to the train, you could first GO to the doctor's appointment with me and ask your questions in person. That way you'll know what was asked and exactly what the doctor said without my watering anything down.

G:  No way. NO ONE goes to their partner's doctors appointment. That's crazy.

S:  I don't know. I've seen it happen quite often, but if you're not comfortable... Just trying to get you the information first hand, Dear.

G:  I'll make a list of questions for you to ask the doctor.

S:   No thank you. If you want to control the questions you can do it in person, Sweetheart.

When I refused his question list, Greg refused to assist.  I just planned on taking a cab instead.  Must less agita.

Condensing, a bit: Another friend drove her to the train station. The porters assisted her onto and off of the train (and she ended up vomiting green bile while on the train).

But when I got off the train my mom saw a skeleton, my sister thought I was dead, and apparently I talked in circles that entire first night.

After eating that first meal, my family could see my face fill out a bit within an hour or two.

That weekend with my family, I ate, I slept, and just hung out with loved ones, feeling very safe and accepted.

Unbeknownst to me, my doctor had seen a chemical imbalance between my sodium and potassium in my bloodwork.  Sis talked to a nurse friend of hers who said that my circular discussions were consistent with that condition.

Monday, I returned to Burbank, but instead of beginning a battery of tests at appointments all week, I would admit myself to the hospital for the tests, have a sodium IV round-the-clock, and go through a diet modification and education.

When she got out of the hospital after the tests, Sid was still so weak she could barely walk even short distances. She looked like a Somalian famine victim, except for the red hair and freckles. The "support" she received from Greg while in the hospital was so draining, physically and emotionally, that she asked him to not to come back for the rest of her time there. Two months later, she was dead.  While Sidney was an adult woman, who could and should have taken better care of herself, I also believe that with a more sympathetic and supportive partner, she might still be alive.

I believe that in Sid's situation, in my similar experiences, in those of other people who have shared stories of a denial/refusal to help a loved one during a health crisis - it's not that the OCPD'r doesn't have empathy, doesn't care. So if we think we could have a better result, if only they had more empathy - maybe we're going in the wrong direction. Maybe they already have gobs of empathy, crippling amounts of empathy, but they need training/help in sympathy.

I posed this question on the free forums site: We all know (I hope) that if your spouse tells you, "Honey, I think I broke a bone; will you please drive me to the emergency room?" that The Right Thing to do is get the car keys and not argue - am I right?

Here was one reply, from someone with an OCPD spouse and mother, who suspects perhaps a bit of OCPDness in herself:

I see it as denial or deliberate self-delusion based on caring too much, rather than caring too little. My mental model of it (Note the term mental model - I'm not saying that it's an accurate reflection of anyone's thinking) is:

- It's the OCPDer's job to discover, implement, and enforce all of the rules that keep the universe spinning and keep anything bad from ever, ever happening.

- Something bad happened.

These two things are incompatible. They lead to a choice between two equally intolerable conclusions:

- Bad stuff just happens sometimes, with no way to prevent it, or

- The OCPDer committed an error in performing his job to ensure that nothing bad ever happens.

We know that the first is true. The OCPDer may logically know the same thing. But emotionally, no. To accept that is, I think, to undermine the whole underpinning for OCPD. It would be an instantaneous cure. That's not going to happen.

And the second is equally intolerable. If the OCPDer can make mistakes re: things that are desperately important, like their spouse, then the whole protective structure that they've built around themselves is utterly worthless.

So it's necessary to go on to less logical but more palatable explanations. Some possible explanations that I can see are:

- Nothing bad has actually happened; the event is just an ordinary everyday thing.

- The bad thing is not the OCPDer's fault, it's the fault of the person that it happened to.

- The OCPDer doesn't actually care about the person. Look at them, after all, how imperfect and annoying they are.

Another interesting reply to the question: We all know (I hope) that if your spouse tells you, "Honey, I think I broke a bone; will you please drive me to the emergency room?" that The Right Thing to do is get the car keys and not argue - am I right? came from someone diagnosed with and struggling with this disorder:

Yes, you're right. But you're right in a language the OCPDr, at least in my experience, doesn't grasp in practice. Intellectually, in theory, in fantasy, sure. But in taking action? That alien, otherness that I often speak of - this is the heart of it.

What happens in these situations is a system breakdown, "file not found," from what I can tell. The rest - any action the OCPD'r does actually take - is fallout, dysfunctional, nonfunctional, whatever. Shame, frustration, fear, become defensiveness, anger, blame.

Empathy & compassion flow on impulse, a word more often associated with things like fun and spontaneity. But when you think about situations calling for empathy, some being illnesses, accidents, emergencies, these are unmapped territories that a person acts on with impulse, to caretake, to help, to allow the other to heal and feel better, without concern for doing it right. I'm not talking morally here, I'm talking protocol, even where and when protocol simply doesn't apply. We impose the word moral here sometimes in regard to the OCPDr but as I have before, I disagree with that. OCPD'rs work with plans and maps and protocol, those sorts of sanctioned "right" ways. But no two situations like these are alike, even if an illness repeats, or some detail may be similar, there are so many x factors that each one is completely unknown and uncharted. There's literally no conduit for the empathy to flow from.

Now, if a situation does repeat closely enough, or I've observed someone else taking the exact same action that's called for - I may do fine. If my brain detects a match, inside what happens is "aha, I know this one. I can do this one." Break a second bone a week later and I'll drive you to the ER without hesitation, so long as there's a clean & clear view of action to be taken.

sympathy doll (Photo credit: brendaj)

So, IMO, it's not that those with this disorder lack empathy - but they lack sympathy. They can't express what they feel in a way that is helpful to you. Much like a computer given a command it doesn't recognize, you'll get: File Not Found.  Maybe the average person doesn't need a script, doesn't need to be coached in the appropriate length of a hug, or not to argue with a partner who needs a ride to the hospital or a train station, but those with this and similar disorders do.

To expect them to "exceed their programming limitations" in times of crisis is akin to expecting your bird to start catching mice.


The problem is that when you as the partner are experiencing the heart attack, broken bone, or life-threatening illness, you may not have the time or patience to clearly and calmly help your partner or parent through their meltdown over your health crisis.

Your thoughts?

A-Z: Validation Station

Not talking about for your parking pass.  Of course, it's important for us all to develop a strong inner sense of self, and not be constantly seeking the approval of others.

Yet both giving and receiving emotional validation is a key part of being a human being. People by nature are interdependent with one another.  What brings people together? A sense that we share the same feelings about: progressive music, or baseball, or RomCom movies.

When I am overflowing with feelings, and go to someone I love, I don't want to be cut off, told my feelings are stupid, or "fixed."

From Eqi.org

What Validation Is
To validate someone's feelings is first to accept someone's feelings. Next, it is to understand them, and finally it is to nurture them. 

To validate is to acknowledge and accept one's unique identity and individuality. Invalidation, on the other hand, is to reject, ignore, or judge their feelings, and hence, their individual identity. 

When we validate someone, we allow them to safely share their feelings and thoughts. We are reassuring them that it is okay to have the feelings they have. We are demonstrating that we will still accept them after they have shared their feelings. We let them know that we respect their perception of things at that moment. We help them feel heard, acknowledged, understood and accepted. 

Sometimes validation entails listening, sometimes it is a nod or a sign of agreement or understanding, sometimes it can be a hug or a gentle touch. Sometimes it means being patient when the other person is not ready to talk.

The concept of validation is what's behind this phrase from the movie Avatar, "I see you."

Being seen, being accepted, being honored not for the shell of our bodies, but as a soul, a divine spark. Namaste is sometimes translated as "I honor the place in you in which the entire universe dwells. I honor the place in you which is of love, of truth, of light and of peace. When you are in that place in you, and I am in that place in me, we are one." (from livestrong.com)

from The Antidote To Anger and Frustration:

Emotional Validation is a Basic Human Need
Emotional validation is something we all seek and crave far more than we realize. When we are upset, angry, frustrated, disappointed or hurt, our tendency is to want to discuss our feelings with others so we can get it off our chest.

However, getting things off our chest by telling others about our feelings is not always satisfying or cathartic. If the person to whom we vent simply looks at us and shrugs or responds by giving us advice or by telling us what we did wrong, we won't feel any better and we will probably feel worse after speaking with them.

What we seek when venting to others is for that person to 'get it', to understand what happened to us and why we feel the way we do. We want them to validate our feelings by conveying that understanding to us and to do so with a dollop of sympathy or empathy (read: How to Test Your Empathy).

When we are extremely angry or upset, we tell someone why and they totally get it truly and effectively validates our feelings. As a result, the relief and catharsis we experience is tremendous! Only then can we actually let go of at least some of the feelings we had built up. It is that which feels like an authentic visceral 'release'.

We don't have to agree with what someone is feeling to validate those feelings. We don't even have to be particularly empathetic to be good at validation.

Here's one technique, the I AM MAD. (Works for more than BPD)

I am-mad emotional validation skill

View more PowerPoint from bondobbs

Because I tend to be a fixer, myself, one thing I try to do when someone is telling me a story and I am overflowing with advice, is take a step back, and ASK, "Do you need suggestions or advice, or are you just looking to vent?"

Hoping with practice to get ever better at it.

My A-Z theme is Issues related to Mental Health or Mental Illness.

Have you ever felt emotionally invalidated?

How did it make you feel?

Do you try hard to validate the feelings of others?

Got any good tips?

Walking A Mile in Their Moccasins - Developing Empathy

Photo by Paul Martin Eldridge
at FreeDigitalPhotos

One of the most painful aspects in my relationship with my ex was his expectation that I did - or should - see the world through his eyes.  At best, he would act hurt; at worst, he would be in a towering rage if  I didn't enjoy the foods he liked, appreciate the same TV shows and movies, have the same views on politics, religion, housecleaning... the list went on and on.

The problem wasn't that we never saw eye to eye on anything.  We had many likes and beliefs in common.  It wasn't that I couldn't see and understand his point of view in areas where we differed, because I could and did.  It was that I (stubbornly, to his point of view) refused to be him.  He was unable to understand and appreciate that I was a separate person with different ideas, thoughts, and feelings, which were as equally valid and logical as his own. 

It seemed as surprisingly outrageous for me to express a different opinion as if his own hand had turned around and said, "Hey You!  From now on, I'm not gonna zip up your pants or press buttons on the remote anymore.  I've decided to go into archaeology.  See ya!"

from rebeccaselah at Flickr

Even if I was standing in front of him, telling him, "Here's how I feel, and here's why I think I feel that way," he couldn't put himself into my moccasins, as the old saying goes, and understand what I felt.  He could only go as far as to imagine how he would feel in such a situation.  It was like he expected me to walk in his moccasins, rather than him attempting to walk a mile in mine.

He lacked empathy.

Too often when we talked, he would launch into OCPD in rant/lecture/rambling mode, in which I did not even get an opportunity to speak.  (After all, if you're not really a separate person, what do you possibly have to say?)

Possibly he didn't mean to devalue me as a person, or to ignore my feelings or experiences.  However, whether he meant to or not, that's what his actions did.  To be treated as a non-person - OCPD or non, adult or child - as if one does not have (or is not entitled to have) separate thoughts, dreams, likes and dislikes, and feelings, is one of the most painful and dehumanizing experiences possible.  (And one that many with OCPD themselves experienced as children at the hands of a possibly OCPD parent.)

These and similar behaviors have been related time and again, not only by many partners and children of those with OCPD, but also by those who struggle with a loved one with  Asperger's Syndrome or autism.

Part of the problem seemed to be lack of listening, and part of it seemed to be not hearing.  Human beings communicate not just verbally, but with facial expressions, body language, gestures, tone, even odor (fear-stink, ovulating pheromones, etc.).  Even if one hears and processes every single word (which my ex did not), there's still a whole lot of information that gets missed, if the facial expressions and body language are either skipped or misinterpreted.

Does OCPD perhaps fall under the umbrella of SEPD - Socio-Emotional Processing Disorder?

...people with SEPD may have normal or even superior verbal skills, yet may still have a lot of trouble with social communication. Conversations may often be one sided. The person with SEPD may carry on a monologue on a favorite subject and not be aware of attempts of his/her listener to interject comments. At the same time, they most likely do not recognize the frustration or other emotional response their listener is showing. Consequently, it is difficult for them to develop emotional relationships, friendships, and even normal interactions with coworkers. 

Is the empathy center (if there is such a thing) which comes naturally to most people missing?  Or perhaps present, but underdeveloped or damaged?   Recent research points to drug abusers also having difficulty recognizing emotion from facial expressions.


How Do We "Grow" Empathy?

from Salvatore Vuono
at FreeDigitalPhotos

First, make sure we always allow our conversational partner adequate time to speak.  If we know we tend to monopolize a conversation, use an egg-timer, a stopwatch, or allow our partner to do so, but don't allow ourselves to run on for more than 2-3 minutes at a stretch.  FYI, allowing someone time to speak means giving them time to say more than Uh-huh, You're right, or Okay.  They are even allowed to change the subject!

Ask, don't tell others how they feel.  Listen without judgment.   Instead of "I can't believe you don't love my chile rellenos.  I think you do and just don't want to admit it," try "Thanks for trying them.  What was it about them that you didn't care for?"

Try not to take things personally.  I didn't like my ex's chile rellenos.  That doesn't mean I didn't like him, as a person, nor that I didn't truly appreciate all the time and energy that went into preparing them. (Goodness knows, I would lavish compliments and thanks on him for every meal he prepared.)  I'm a supertaster; I don't like spicy food, I have never liked anybody's chile rellenos.  My ex seemed to take every difference of opinion as a personal criticism of him, and be crushed by it.

Our spouses, our parents, our children, our boss, our dog - nobody is ever going to love every single thing we do and say.  We need to find a way to be okay with that, and to not plunge into fear/panic mode if somebody expresses disapproval or dislike of one thing we have done or said.

Ask follow-up questions, without passing judgment.  "I'd never have picked Animal House as one of the best movies ever made, but am curious as to why you think so.  Tell me more."

Ask open-ended questions.  "I'm trying to do a better job of listening to you.  Is there something else I can do that I'm not doing?"

Go for the five-to-one rule.  For every single criticism or negative remark, try to find and say at least five things about the person that we like, admire, or respect.

eHow thinks we can even build up our skills at reading facial expressions.

Read as much fiction as possible, to stretch our imaginations and to glimpse inside other people's minds and motivations.  Consider empathy and imagination not as some ethereal gift - we're born with X much and that's all, folks! - but as flabby muscles, which can be exercised and built up.

From Azar Nafisi's Reading Lolita in Tehran  (bolding is mine):

"...This carelessness, a lack of empathy, appears in Jane Austen's negative characters: in Lady Catherine, in Mr.s Morris, in Mr. Collins or the Crawfords.  The theme recurs in Henry James's stories and Nabokov's monster heroes: Humbert, Kinbote, Van and Ada Veen.  Imagination in these works is equated with empathy; we can't experience all that others have gone through, but we can understand even the most monstrous individuals in works of fiction.  A good novel is one that shows the complexity of individuals, and creates enough space for all these characters to have a voice; in this way a novel is called democratic - not that it advocates democracy, but that by nature it is so.  Empathy lies at the heart of Gatsby, like so many other great novels - the biggest sin is to be blind to others' problems and pains.  Not seeing them means denying their existence."

We all want people to "see the real me."  The only way people can see us, and we see them, is through empathy.



One caveat - for those who tend to err on the side of co-dependence, rather than not enough empathy, it's important not to dive too deeply into the pool of feeling for and understanding others.  We need to reserve a healthy amount of time and energy for ourselves.

Got an empathy story?