I have gone my whole life thinking that this was the definition of empathy, understanding other people's feelings and how they are connected to their behavior. I always thought the concept of feeling what someone else feels was a metaphor for understanding it, because how could anyone ever know what emotions are running through someone else's mind? Emotions are chaotic and very particular to millions of unique chemical and electrical reactions in in the brain, which are then interpreted by someone's unique experience.

I can't say I ever thought I felt what someone else was feeling, so maybe I just have no empathy. I also don't ever get angry, so maybe that's related. (I make one exception for misbehaving computers with no clear reason or solution, but I'd call that frustration.)

So generally, I agree with the author that understanding others and responding in supportive ways is much more useful than feeling what you think they are feeling. I am just skeptical that anyone would argue, and I would be surprised if that's what the quoted people had in mind.

Thanks for the TLDR - I was struggling with the low contrast, given the verbosity and the long time coming to the point.

I was getting the sense that the author had decided to use a twisted definition of empathy, and came to a series of faulty conclusions because of that. At the start, the author says "When I say empathy, I mean sympathy", in which case... the term "sympathy" should be used. In my experience, people don't use them interchangably; sympathy is feeling sorry or happy for someone, empathy is understanding where (and why) that person is coming from. Or at least, trying to.

I got through a third of the article and it really started shaping up as "I don't like sympathy" rather than empathy; starting from faulty premises, the author gets to have his 'shock value' statement, but it's not accurate.