In that context, your comment reads "Why don't you just decide to be better?". Do you think that the original commenter wanted to be this way? That it was a deliberate choice? Do you think it's that easy to change right now? I won't go on, but your comment came off as condescending - whatever your intentions are.
How do you define 'natural state'? For example, my natural state is to be attracted to food when I'm hungry, to certain humans who I find sexually appealing, etc., but I don't grab those things when they pass by; it's not hard. My natural state is to be angry or upset when my client says certain things, but I don't punch them or cry. My natural state is to be an illiterate, innumerate nomadic hunter-gatherer, like 200,000+ years of ancestors, yet here I am on my fat ass in front of a computer.
People process their emotions in many ways, healthy and unhealthy. It's our choice what we each do with them. Emotions are exceptionally valuable to judgement, intuition, and to your experience of the world. They are your experience of the world, for the most part.
> your comment came off as condescending
I'm not the commenter, but for another POV, that wasn't my impression.
If a person has angry tendencies, then it is a struggle to handle that anger. Often people need help (ie. a therapist) to deal with these.
It is my experience that you can't tell someone to "turn your empathy into a superpower" the same way you can't tell them to "turn your anger into a superpower" - it just isn't that easy, takes time and effort.
Yes, it can be done, but success looks more like "I managed my anger so I can live a happier life" instead of "I channeled my anger and became a boxing champion". Think "I managed my empathy and set healthy boundaries". What would 'success' even look like in this context?
Of course, most people can muster the strength to choose to pass on the desert or the tryst. I think the parent is referring to the hard cases, where, only in retrospect, you have the clarity to see that you made the wrong choice and wish you'd done otherwise.
But of course you can't. And if you rewound the universe to the exact same starting conditions you still couldn't.
You only know what's 'hard' after you try to change them.
> But of course you can't. And if you rewound the universe to the exact same starting conditions you still couldn't.
That's too fatalistic. You can and do, but it's indeed hard.
I reject the idea that, to express an extreme case, we are powerless automatons of our worst instincts. We have free will and choices, just not always easy ones; we can change, but sometimes it takes a lot of work. People HN believe their startup can change the world and embrace all the hard work and mountains to climb; we have a much better chance of changing ourselves.
people are capable of deciding to be better when they've the faculties and depth of experience and wisdom. Ever manage to troubleshoot a faulty canopy mid fall, or make a decision to cut the main and deploy the reserve parachute? you dont get to that mode of operation overnight.
Note, that you can train altruistic and empathetic appearing behaviors. So yes, even though you're all starving, the men eat first. Yes, you are going to risk your life doing X. Yes, you are going to tell everyone its okay and appear calm even while you're panicking.
I have plenty of flaws but I am blessed with willpower, at a level that drives others crazy; I am always pushing the furthest, always the last to give up. Perhaps that's been built up because I used willpower to solve my problems most of my life; perhaps I used it because it was already a strength. I also used it for my emotions, as if they were an injured knee and I just had to tough it out and would run anyway. In hindsight, I was ignorant. I'm not sure if the following is what you seek, but feel free to ask questions and I'll try my best to answer.
Imagine there is a First Law of Emotional Dynamics, the Law of Preservation of Emotions. You cannot destroy them; you can transform them from one form to another (e.g., fear becomes anger). If you don't process them, they remain, sometimes lifelong (trauma, PTSD). Emotions are going to be there and they are going to have their say. If you try to suppress them, they will have their say without your input or consent. You will deal with them, in an unhealthy way (drinking and drugs are popular!) or in a healthy way. Your choice! The most practical tip I have is, replace unhealthy coping with healthy coping - the drive is genuine and normal; you just need a healthy way to take care of it.
Second Law: Input of emotions is from specific sources, internal and external. Output is by default toward the easiest target. Your boss screams at you, you supress your anger/fear/shame, you go home and find yourself yelling at whoever because they didn't turn off the light - a lot safer to yell at them than at your boss! Much more consequential and also typical: A child feels angry at their parents; the child can't express anger because their parents don't allow it, implicitly or otherwise; the child can't even blame the parents internally because a child is so dependent - for survival - on their parents and trusts whatever they say or imply - 'it can't be their fault'. So the child turns the anger inwardly, toward themselves, and feels shame (anger becomes shame, see the First Law). As they get older, their shame (an incredibly damaging emotion) becomes anger - they hate it - but they still don't turn it at their parents; they probably don't even realize the source. The anger is aimed at easiest targets around them, maybe their own children.
Third Law: Emotional energy is intangible, immeasurable, and indefinable, but it is real and it is limited. You have a limited capacity of emotional energy. I used to insist this was nonsense and that through willpower I would just keep going, and what was going to stop me? It was sort of like insisting that I was going to sprint a marathon. I can insist and have all the willpower I like but my body doesn't have the capacity and neither do our emotions. If you push past your capacity, there will be a rebound effect - I did this all the time, completely disregarding my emotions as a matter of course, and then I couldn't understand why, subsequently, I couldn't seem to function - 'I just need more willpower!'. You can imagine how that worked out. Now, I manage that capacity - I do things that build it up, I spend it selectively, I anticipate my limits, which I have learned about. Sometimes I do have to push myself beyond them, through willpower - if a loved one is seriously ill, then that is more important - but I am making a choice, I have built up my capacity over the years, and I plan for and manage the rebound in a healthy way.
......
But notice that I described my early perspective of emotion as like an injury, as if it's a malfunction or friction in the gears. More than anything else, it is you; it's the core of you, it's your actual experience of the world and your life, and it's also essential to judgment, instinct, intuition, etc. My early perspective was 180 degrees wrong: Have compassion for it, care for it, love it, it's important, it is your humanity. That change in perspective has transformed my experience of life, my ability to love, my perception and experience of the world, and also my instinct and intuition.
All you seem to need to change is the grasp on the idea who you are now is eternal.
Your comment comes off like the world must now stand still for you. Hard pass.
Numbing it was never a conscious decision, it was an automatic learned response to pain after years / decades. Now that I'm more conscious of what's happening, I can begin to work with it, but personality traits like this are generally highly stable and resistant to change. Which isn't to say there's nothing that can be done about it, just that's challenging (and in the process, you may be losing some of the benefits of that learned behavior).
Yes. Impossible to change some would say. So my message was wear it with pride. There's a philosopher called Kierkegaard who would say that you can't be "cured" of what you are. And since empathy is a gift, instead make it a superpower. That happens when you control it instead of it controlling you. Good luck, and I hope your gift brings you great things.
From one person's experience with other personality traits, it's both hard but just lots of hard work and determination.
> and in the process, you may be losing some of the benefits of that learned behavior
You will gain so much more, you can't even imagine now. You will look back and laugh at worrying about what you were going to lose. It's like forgetting how to run a super-marathon while learning that you have wings and how to fly.
> That's precisely the time when you need to dig deep and let _reason_ take the lead
I would say when self-sacrifice, thinking of others first is what's called for, that's actually empathy leading, at its most high-functioning.
Empathy is taking the lead, but it's somehow a deeper kind, qualitatively distinct from day to day sympathy and personality. Sometimes a person you thought was rather heartless day to day, turns out to care for their buddies in such a moment, and you don't forget their actions.
Of course it is empathy in concert with reason. Reason, intuition, skill, knowledge - and that measured mind - are all required in difficult situations, but without empathy would often lead to self-preservation mode.
> deep down they are actually masters of the empathy they've carefully hidden.
I like this. Yeah, that's what I mean.
It’s the generalization that is wrong. People are not permanently one way. They fluctuate. They are infatuated at 20, struggling for money at 30, tired at 40, getting things in the correct order at 50, disconnected at 60… They make different conclusions about life. They may save a kid at 30 and not when they themselves have a family. Or the opposite. Generalization is erroneous.
What you are alluding to sounds like abuse. As you can see in this thread I am being chastised for offering unsolicited, condescending advice about things I know nothing about - as if the vicarious snipers knew anything about my experiences or expertise, and as if my tone was out of place here.
If your comment pertains to yourself I'd heartily recommend you read [1][2] below. People are using the word "numb". That could mean a lot of things, drugs, alcohol, or other indulgences. But there are specific dangers with the coping behaviour that clinicians call "dissociation". I wish you well.
[1] https://www.survivingmypast.net/dissociation-protective-as-a...
[2] https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-savvy-psychologi...
While I empathize with people using numbness, it's not true that it's the only defense. Hurt is something in you; it's your perceptual experience and you can control that. Someone hurts me because I let them. That doesn't excuse them, but takes away their power: I can look at it differently.
It's not a panacea, but I've been through what you've talked about and not surrendering my empathy, not letting them destroy that part of me, was something I was determined to do.
Compassion is a great too, your armor: Compassion for yourself, displacing the hurt from others, and for the abusers, which takes away much of their power.
What is the training or technique used? I'd love to learn more about it.
What are the odds that GP would post "I don't know exactly what these brain regions do, but I know that these transgendered people who had fMRI showing their brains function much closer to their identified gender should simply stop being transgendered by overriding/mastering the differences with reason and discipline."
I'm guessing zero... but because it's a study on empathy, it's totally a-ok to say "i don't know a thing about this, but since its not a problem for me, it shouldn't be a problem for you"
"While anger makes us certain in our righteous indignation, anxiety, and surprise make us unsure of what’s going on and what will happen next. And when we feel uncertain, we tend to fall back on what we know to be true — namely, our own perspectives and feelings"
Disciplined empathy is no longer empathy. And it is no longer virtuous. You are close to understanding, but keep going.
Giving birth and nourishing, making without possessing, expecting nothing in return. To grow, yet not to control: This is the mysterious virtue.
Chapter 10, Dao De Ching
I agree with the previous poster, but I'm curious to learn what you mean.
It is not myself that creates the Dao, but I can thank you for creating the Dao!
When a superior person hears of the Tao, She diligently puts it into practice. When an average person hears of the Tao, he believes half of it, and doubts the other half. When a foolish person hears of the Tao, he laughs out loud at the very idea. If he didn’t laugh, it wouldn’t be the Tao.
From the Christian Gospels (Mark 4)
Jesus tells the parable of the sower, ending, ""He who has ears, let him hear." And when he was alone, those around him with the twelve asked him about the parables. And he said to them, "To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables, so that 'they may indeed see but not perceive, / and may indeed hear but not understand, / lest they should turn and be forgiven.'" And he said to them, "Do you not understand this parable? How then will you understand all the parables? The sower sows the word. And these are the ones along the path, where the word is sown: when they hear, Satan immediately comes and takes away the word that is sown in them. And these are the ones sown on rocky ground: the ones who, when they hear the word, immediately receive it with joy. And they have no root in themselves, but endure for a while; then, when tribulation or persecution arises on account of the word, immediately they fall away. And others are the ones sown among thorns. They are those who hear the word, but the cares of the world and the deceitfulness of riches and the desires for other things enter in and choke the word, and it proves unfruitful. But those that were sown on the good soil are the ones who hear the word and accept it and bear fruit, thirtyfold and sixtyfold and a hundredfold.""
From the Quran:
As for the unbelievers, alike it is to them / whether thou hast warned them or hast not warned them, / they do not believe. / God has set a seal on their hearts and on their hearing, / and on their eyes is a covering, / and there awaits them a mighty chastisement.
Regarding allegory in Medieval philosophy: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/medieval-literary/
The controversial and difficult question is why these medieval thinkers chose the allegorical form, and whether the text can be understood without its allegorical form. Avicenna tells us that what he purports to do by allegory is to convey one message to the "many" in sensible imagery they can understand, while conveying a different message to the philosophically minded few .... Neoplatonic and Christian writers ... [cited] the importance of not 'casting one's pearls before swine' ...
I have always considered that the two questions respecting God and the Soul were the chief of those that ought to be demonstrated by philosophical rather than theological argument. For although it is quite enough for us faithful ones to accept by means of faith the fact that the human soul does not perish with the body, and that God exists, it certainly does not seem possible ever to persuade infidels of any religion, indeed, we may almost say, of any moral virtue, unless, to begin with, we prove these two facts by means of the natural reason.
What about this is vague? He's clearly laying out his goals and how he intends to do it. If you want to say that religion, as a particulary subset of philosophical thought, is often vague, then sure, but a lot of philosophy is very intentional and focused. It's setting out a goal and working towards achieving said goal, not trying to write in a manner that will appeal to everyone.
We have domesticated wolves so much that we call them dogs now. So we could actually call dogs "disciplined wolves", yes?
Like a "wolf" behaves differently than a "discipline wolf", "empathy" will express differently than "disciplined empathy". It is inauthentic.
You cannot change something and say it is the same thing.
Did that help?
If you are interesting, Chuang Tzu, a Daoist sage, had a lot to say about this.
To say otherwise is to say there is no such thing as wolf or that there is a single platonic wolf and all other wolves are inauthentic. Either of these may be true, but I doubt there is much practical advice in this idea for learning to deal with a lack of boundaries created by empathetic confusion.
I am not saying otherwise. There is no such thing as a wolf.
Yet there is.
Our language is a tool we use to categorize an infinite reality. Like you said, there are an infinite amount of wolves, but we reduce them using language. There is nothing wrong with this until we start thinking our language is the reality.
So where is the border between wolf and dog? If A wolf is nice too a human do we suddenly call it a dog? Does not the very distinction of a wolf and a dog rely, not on the species, but on the human? Does a dog think still think it is a wolf? Is a dog just a wolf that tricks us so it can get free food and shelter?
We do the same thing with empathy. By defining it with language we reduce it and confine it which it cannot be reduced or confined. Like everything else, empathy is infinite and unlimited in its expression.
I don't know enough neuroscience to know what the "right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex" is exactly but I know that you can over-ride/master it with reason and discipline.
So I think there's something more to people allowing their better nature to slip under stress than simple brain chemicals.
A colonel told me, that in the moment of most stress that's when the men need you most of all, and need you to retain dignity, self-sacrifice, and thinking about _them_ more than ever. When everyone is shitting themselves we revert to "I'm alright Jack" self-preservation mode. That's precisely the time when you need to dig deep and let _reason_ take the lead. Compassion/altruism etc is a personality structure, not a fleeting feeling, so it's encoded into your rational decision making.
So a ton of training is about getting you to "snap out of yourself".
The body moves in fast time, but if the mind can still stay in slow, measured mode, that's how the best comes out in some poeple under adversity. Hardballs who have no love for humanity will jump on to the tracks to save a kid from a subway train, because deep down they are actually masters of the empathy they've carefully hidden.
I guess that tension between what you know you should do and what you find yourself instinctively inclined to do - is conscience.