Your most important skill: Empathy
chadfowler.com
chadfowler.com
> The reason crowds of people exhaust me is that I am constantly trying to read and understand the feelings and motivations of those around me.
To me, this is a symptom of a poor Theory of Mind, or a conflict between the consciously held theory of mind and the internalized one. For the author, it looks like that latter -- he's exhausted because he has to consciously re-process his perceptions of others, perceptions which his internal ToM has already processed but has output conclusions that he might not consider acceptable (which implies a mismatch between the two ToMs).
What he's suggesting as a solution, in my opinion, is an attempt to suppress the symptoms, when the problem is the ToM. The correct way -- or at least the way that worked for me -- is to learn to see other human beings as different versions of myself, with different experiences and neurological makeup. In order to understand a person's behavior, especially negative behavior, I try to first imagine a situation where I would behave in a similar manner (e.g. the boss just yelled at me; I could conclude he is an asshole, or I could try to imagine a situation where I have yelled at someone in my team). Then I try to remember my state of mind from a similar past situation. Then I imagine the other person being under the influence of those same emotions. Suddenly it is easier to understand the person's behavior (but not justify it). Sometimes I ask myself "Had I been born with the same type of central nervous system, had I gone through the same experiences as this person and if I were in this person's situation right now, would I not be behaving in an identical manner?"
To oversimplify: empathy starts with a habit of stepping into other people's shoes. The other habits will follow.
I have a favorite saying:
Tout comprendre, c'est tout pardonner
(French, meaning "To understand all, is to forgive all")
Do you think that people who struggle with empathy have that issue partially due to a non-deterministic view of life?
Your theory, by focusing on the situation rather than personality, at least avoids the fundamental attribution error. Your model however fails for outliers; not everyone can be modelled as "like-me". Sociopaths, borderline personality disorders, senility: there's a long list of ways in which people are different enough that simple unconscious models will not be accurate.
I mention this because:
> To me, [exhaustion when reading and understanding people] is a symptom of a poor Theory of Mind, or a conflict between the consciously held theory of mind and the internalized one.
It strikes me as likely that someone who isn't neurotypical may similarly be having to explicitly consciously process the reading of the other people around them. This may not be a poor theory of mind, but simply a side effect of a different neural architecture.
Your empathy habits and practices are admirable. I encourage you to cast your net even wider, though, when it comes to imagining versions of yourself with different neurological makeup.
Aspies/autistics are deficient in cognitive empathy.
But when we find out others' feelings through explicit communication or other clues, we can feel for them.
We are not selfish, uncaring or unable to feel for others.
It kind-of sounds like the reverse to me. You're justifying the behaviour by imagining a situation where you would react the same way, thereby saying that you're no better than they are.
What you're not doing is explaining why they behave the way that they do. Whatever you imagining, odds are you're not correct in your guesses.
Your theory is interesting, and I'm curious to hear how you'd interpret my situation. I get equally exhausted from being around people, but my problem is not so much that I am constantly trying to read and understand people, but rather that I seem to pick up and mirror the incessant (negative) emotions all around me when I'm in a group, with little filtering.
So if two colleagues get into a bit of an argument, I pick up on their negativity and feel my energy slowly drain away. Even if I don't really know them or care about them.
For much of my life I tried to address this by trying to understand the details of the situation and ideally by playing a role in solving it. That didn't really help much, and more recently I've allowed situations to just be. But while that gives me more peace of mind, it actually seems to increase my sensitivity to things around me.
It's reached a point where I try to manage it by avoidance: taking a bike instead of public transport to avoid seeing someone cry or get into a fight, focusing on my work as a contractor/freelancer to avoid a draining eight hours in an office, socializing less when my energy levels feel particularly low, etc.
While this solution works, it's not ideal, as I do have a strong desire to interact with others on a meaningful level.
If you want to, use the Neurosky Mindwave Mobile headset. It's around 100$ and uses EEG to detect whether you are focused (in mindfulness mediation, called "attention"). I even think it can tell if you are experiencing empathy: Neurosky's "meditation" score seems to tilt whenever you think about anything really cute. Everything within limits of course...
Anyway, mindfulness meditation has been shown to at least appear to increase empathy. I've felt the difference too. It's way easier to "do" empathy once you have the mental muscle to stop judging and just observe. This has been shown in research as well.
I would write a pretty article about it but sadly I don't give a fuck.
Being an asshole takes some work and exercise too. All I'm saying is that I'm very surprised by the conclusion this article makes and would definitely suggest the opposite to the very few I care about.
I can definitely think of places where coming across as too empathetic makes one appear weak, and coming across as an asshole who has a plan and is going to make it happen (regardless of trivialities like feelings) makes one appear like a leader.
On the other hand, I tend to avoid them wherever possible, as I find this setup toxic to my own strengths and empathy.
Perhaps I'm extrapolating to the great extreme, but seeing this comment(especially the health part) I think what you used to be wasn't empahtetic good guy but rather a general good guy who can't say no. If this assessment is correct I think you've 'turned'(to your own diction) into not an asshole, but a self-assertive guy who can say no. That's somewhat different from being an asshole.
Though it may seem like an assholery, it generally is not.
Occasionally I feel envy for people with sociopathic tendencies. How nice it would be to only worry about what makes yourself happy.
I've come to the conclusion though that for the most part, someone's level of empathy is mostly physiological/genetic and there's little I can do to change that. If I tried on purpose to care less towards others, I'd probably start feeling sick/guilty -- a biological reaction that I wouldn't be able to suppress.
My point is obfuscated by the fact in many contexts the word "empathy" and "empath" are intended to involve not only the person practicing empathy, but also the interaction with the person to be understood.
What it boils down to is that you can understand what people are feeling and still decide to disregard them.
As a child, I was highly empathetic, caring, and frequently overwhelmed by others’ emotions. As an adolescent, I did a face-heel turn and became very manipulative, frequently lying, gaslighting, and emotionally abusing others.
But now it’s the positive aspects of both; I don’t feel emotions very strongly but am quite empathetic toward others, accommodating their needs with perceptive and manipulative skills honed by an adolescence of (frankly) sociopathy.
Being entirely self-serving gets old, actually. There’s not really any challenge in picking pockets or getting laid.
It does not advocating being an asshole, but discusses the "too nice" attitude (which, it turns out, is not nice at all).
A CEO can screw his shareholders in the short term. A CEO that takes care of his shareholders does well in the long term.
You can stiff a restaurant and run out on the tab. Helps your pocketbook. But you can never come back.
In essence, being an asshole helps in one round prisoner's dilemma games. Life is about repeat games. Cooperation, and putting yourself in the other person's shoes, is what it's all about.
http://www.syntagm.co.uk/design/articles/note1271-hudson.pdf
"because of low empathizing skills, male technologists will inherently find it difficult to see problems from a user’s perspective. Coupled with the fact that they are excellent systemizers it is not surprising that they do not understand why a system might be confusing to users"
I did some looking a while ago and discovered that psychologists distinguish a couple of different kinds of empathy. One is when you intellectually try to figure out how someone feels - the other is when you just feel it.
http://www.npr.org/2011/05/21/136462824/a-psychopath-walks-i...
My experience backs this up. The most wealthy and powerful people I know are at least moderately callous, demanding, and manipulative. Instead of empathy I think being emotionally perceptive is crucial. You must know how others are feeling but not feel it yourself so you can choose to act on that knowledge or not.
I'm smelling a hint towards that special someone wanting to be a butt wiper.
@TheBiv You just proved you do not understand empathy at all.
Another potential positive of empathic caring for another person is an increase in your own personal happiness. It doesn't come directly, but indirectly through helping another person.
http://2013.dareconf.com/videos
No affiliation, just a satisfied attendee.
An interesting point of view is presented in a book Brain Rules for Baby by John Medina. He talks about how technology is destroying a growing mind to develop Empathy. Kids these days are more engaged on their smart phones messaging friends vs spending time in the play ground with them face to face. Their ability to build empathy by human to human communication is diminished. We are then left with kids that have social skill issues and instead of treating the root cause doctors push drugs into them. A spiral down into oblivion.
That is so very true.
If I try and think about everyone who I know, whom I would describe as 'successful', empathy is probably the most common attribute that they all have. Meaning that within a few seconds of talking to them, I can actually get the feeling that they care about what I am saying and what I am doing. Most don't try and guide me in a particular way, they simply try to see if I know where I am headed on my journey.
Kudos to Chad for putting together this post!
http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20121015034012-22...
I was recommended to do so when I suffered a bout of burnout and depression in 2012 and it was a self perpetuating movement for the positive.
Bravo to Chad for raising this in a technical forum - I think the industry can only benefit from a pragmatic approach to empathic skills.
- Realizing that there always something more than you know is the most important skill.
- Everything else is a consequence.
http://mbtitruths.blogspot.se/2013/01/the-functions-explaine...
"Feeling
Extraverted Feeling - Fe users take as their primary focus group values and feelings. Their own emotions are strongly influenced by the emotional atmosphere and other peoples' emotions. If others are having a bad day, they're having a bad day. When asking about the ethical thing to do, they refer to societal norms - what OTHER people feel. They want their peers to agree with their opinions and may feel bad if others disagree. If they've done something immoral, their strongest cues will not be how they feel, but if those around them have an unfavorable reaction. But because they are more aware of others' feelings then Fi users, they are better at deliberately doing or saying things that give people positive feelings. These are the types of people who can be referred to as "people-pleasers." Their facial expressions are often quite animated, with big flowing natural smiles. Teachers, hosts, caretakers, diplomats, politicians, salespeople, receptionists, waiters/waitresses, PR reps, missionaries.
Introverted Feeling - Fi is basically Feeling turned inward. Those who use this function have feelings that are more hidden from view; they are less obvious and they may only share their true feelings with their close friends and family members. To decide if something is moral, they simply ask themselves how THEY feel. So if everyone thinks that eating chocolate chip cookies is okay, but they feel that it's truly wrong, they will have a personal problem with seeing people eat chocolate chip cookies and not eat them themselves. They are not as expressive as Fe users, but they probably feel their emotions more acutely since they don't convey them directly. If Fe is direct expression, Fi is indirect expression. Instead saying "great job, you rock!" they would give thumbs up with a sincere smile. They also focus on individual feelings rather than group feelings. Their facial expressions are rather constrained and may give the impression of pride and passion. Artists, poets, composers, therapists, counselors, writers, speech pathologists, photographers."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGfhQTbcqmA
http://www.slideshare.net/AnnholmMSCCC/identifying-neurocorr...
http://www.keys2cognition.com/papers/EEGandSocialCognition.p...
Perhaps non-intuitively, I believe this is not true. You can tell the programmers who lack empathy -- they write code with no consideration for those who will use the end result or work with it later on. It requires empathy to make an effort to be understood and to be useful to others.
And in the case of anything with a UI, empathy shows up in spades (or doesn't). Just compare that app that seems to anticipate your every need and "just works" to whatever alternatives it's usually competing against. You can't just get away with it by copying whatever Apple does or having a cargo cult "design philosophy" -- you actually have to develop some kind of empathy for the people who use your product.
Not really. I mean, I empathize with those who view charity differently than me. Besides, I have more empathy for the gas attendant who can't take tips (not allowed) who work 8 steps away from a Tim Hortons attendant who I tip everyday.
That said I donate to an actual charity and am believing that I should start tipping less anyway. It subsidises the company, which should pay its workers, and was meant to be an acknowledgment of great work, not an expected way to earn your average income, like we sometimes see today.
Luckily where I live (Canada), we don't have 3$/hr wages which make you seem like a horrible person for not tipping. So that said, while I could tip both minimum wage workers, I could also just not, as I only earn about $1000 more per month, which is offset still, as I'm still paying off my student debts, which means that while I may seem richer, I am not until my debt is repaid.