Empathy is narcissism

Akuma wrote:I wonder how many of us actually ever experienced being held and truly understood.

I didn't get that experience, though have learned over time, others have. I could be jealous or envious (separate thread here applies), or try to understand what those who have are experiencing. I admit though, I can feel empathy only selectively. Fur babies yes (aka pets). For humans, only on occasion and then only after developing a long lasting trust.

I agree though that empathy ultimately is about self interest, but the difference still matters. Those of us with cluster B disorders tend to see the dark side in everything. How is that doing us any good?

If it was about, say, food. Some people can enjoy food and some not because they are over thinking it, and arguing food is about sustenance only, who is better off? Enjoying food is a real thing too. Either way we eat food. It's probably a better place to be to enjoy it then analyze to the point of it's just protein, vitamins, minerals, and raw materials. That doesn't change that others really do enjoy food (hey I do LOL), even if it's true that it's about biology at the end of the day.

xdude wrote:I do get the AsPD story I am above personal EGO, but I don't believe it. It is about that. About salvaging personal ego too. So all the lectures about everyone else is weak but me is BS. Cluster B truths are harsh.

This is true if there's significant anger; the AsPD being caused by environmental factors. For example, neglect, trauma, abuse etc.

It would be a highly emotional condition; anger representing a failure to embody more subtle emotions, born out of frustration, for a situation that can never be resolved.

But what if there is no abuse or environmental trauma? Anger is no longer a driving force towards people. Wanting to burn the world is a weak reaction to not being able to deal with things.

I get more aggressive when I'm stressed; I can feel it coming and I can often pin it down to something. But I don't have a continuous need to hurt other people. What's caused me more problems isn't the times when I've fought with others; it's been the times when I did nothing, because I just didn't care enough.

If I'm insulted and it has the possibility of affecting me, then I'll get angry, but short-lived. Otherwise, it'll wash off. It's a good thing; it allows me to be more objective.

My aggression and violence is internal, mostly born of frustration with circumstance, hardly ever because of people.

justonemoreperson wrote:My aggression and violence is internal, mostly born of frustration with circumstance, hardly ever because of people.

Isn't there the feeling of a social competition related to this frustration?

Like if you feel/think, for an instant: “other people understand/feel this and I don't/can't”, and so you overreact to this feeling of “difference”, that makes you feel uncomfortable, in a narcissistic and aggressive way?

I suppose so. It's frustrating when you know you're right about the way you see something but told you're wrong.

As a child it was worse, as I was put through the wringer of doctors and social workers etc. The basis for the discussions was always to try to make me think differently, so you're always 'wrong'.

Some of the sessions seemed subversive; they were played down as "just wanted to talk and understand" and then a list of questions would follow, some of which I didn't understand. But the result was always to make me see why I needed to think differently.

It was marketed as a collaborative exercise, but it never was.

It's clear, thanks.

Don't take it wrong: to be honest, you are right about many things, but sometimes you don't get that others really see and experience things differently. And I mean: not in a wrong way, just in a different way. Maybe it's a bad result of your childish “sessions”, as you felt that your way of being were disrespected. I am sorry for that.

I think that there are different “truths”, based on individual experiences, and our different thoughts and beliefs are a reflection of the different ways we experience reality. So you aren't absolutely wrong or right, and others aren't absolutely wrong or right.

It's not a compromise, it's exactly how it happens. Different realities coexist.

E. g.: dogs see the world in black and white; if I could talk with my dog, I would describe a colored world, and it would answer that colors don't exist; we would try to explain each other our different realities, we could think that the other one is lying, we could arrive to fight... but finally who is right, who is wrong?

I am sincere, because I see a colored world; my dog is sincere, because it sees a world with no colors. We don't know how reality is. You reality isn't absolute, and my reality isn't absolute.

But it would be good if you could understand that others really perceive it differently, not in a wrong way, and that's because their thoughts and feelings are different. It's not that they are wrong, and you are right; and it's not that they are right, and you are wrong.

It's not a case of wrong and right. I know that others see the world differently, I just can't internally believe it, because I don't experience it myself.

Do you? Do you really believe, internally, that someone can have no conscience? If you can't fundamentally believe that, it's the same thing.

I haven't still a definitive opinion, I am still studying this topic, reading your posts too
Also, it's not clear to me what we mean with "conscience". It seems to have at least two meanings; I was going to open a thread about it in the other subforum, but I can't do it anymore.

By the way, Jomp: if you lack conscience, how can you be entirely sure that you weren't abused?
We recognized abuse through conscience. I guess you could identify a physical abuse, using a cognitive understanding, but I can't see how you could identify when/if you are/were a victim of an emotional abuse. Isn't it the same as with dangers? Psychopaths don't recognize them...

justonemoreperson wrote:This is true if there's significant anger; the AsPD being caused by environmental factors. For example, neglect, trauma, abuse etc.

...

But what if there is no abuse or environmental trauma? Anger is no longer a driving force towards people. Wanting to burn the world is a weak reaction to not being able to deal with things.

It is probably unfortunate that psychopathy, and sociopathy got lumped together in the DSM. I get that the DSM was supposed to be about observable behavior, but there are problems with that too. Personally I see them as separate matters. Sociopaths (like other cluster B types) probably do have environmental reasons to be angry, hurt, etc.

I know the book Wisdom of Psychopaths is not much loved, but it did point out that yes there are some people who simply do not have a sense of empathy. Psychopathy might be biological. The author of the book suggests it is with one experiment, but of course one experiment is no proof. Nor are a few MRI studies.

The thing is the OPs point is valid in that every emotion we have is self serving in some way, including empathy. So I'll go back to my earlier point.

Eating food is about sustenance. Likewise sex is about procreation. Is it really smart to not enjoy either because it's about biology and survival? Likewise empathy gives some people a positive feeling, a sense of meaning, purpose, joy, whatever word to be used.

For example, I enjoy being with my fur baby. It costs money to take care of him, he often interrupts me, etc. But ... there is something primal about a connection to another living creature vs the alternative of no other conscious being. When my pet is upset, hungry, needs something, I can relate and likewise when he is just content and shows me affection. Sure, if I picked those emotions apart enough it probably is about my own survival in some way, but over thinking enjoyment of food, sex, music, pets, etc. to the point of enjoying nothing is to what end?

@Jomp, how old were your parents when they adopt you?

justonemoreperson wrote:It's not a case of wrong and right. I know that others see the world differently, I just can't internally believe it, because I don't experience it myself.

Do you? Do you really believe, internally, that someone can have no conscience? If you can't fundamentally believe that, it's the same thing.

This reminded me of a book in which the author makes this point. As you might guess, it's written from bias/POV of those with a 'conscience' trying to understand, but she makes this point as well. It does go both ways. Those who don't see the world in that way, well they don't, and they can't be talked into changing their way of viewing the world. It is the same for others with a 'conscience', they cannot believe someone doesn't have that sense.

Like several other books point out, a lot of it really comes down to what a person does. A lack of conscience can be a powerful benefit too in some circumstances.