Okay, and I just launched right into our conversation without waiting.
Yeah. Um,
okay, so there's this old story in Nuremberg, Germany about a wealthy man who whose daughter wanted to marry a goldsmith, but the father did not want her to he wanted him her to marry somebody more wealthy. And so the father and I'm this is going to be a long way of getting to an important point. So just stay with me for a moment. Let's think, okay, um, and I want to share my screen so I can show this to you. Yeah, um, he, so he, he basically came to this point where he could see that his daughter wasn't going to relent on this. She was in love with him, and she wanted to marry him. And so he thought he was going to trick the boy into agreeing to something that he couldn't agree to, which was to make a cup that two people can drink out of at the same time. And he was thinking, okay, he's not going to be able to it to do this. And he said, You can marry my daughter if you can make this cup. And so the goldsmith thought about it, you know, spent a lot of time prototyping, and he came up with this thing that I'm going to show you. Can you see that?
Yeah, okay,
okay. So basically, this bottom part, you can turn it upside down, and it's a cup, and then this top part swivels. And so it ends up being that two people can drink out of this cup. So it's one piece, but it's two, basically two separate cups at the same time. And so at their wedding, they drank out of this cup. It kind of symbolized they're coming together. And so now this is actually a thing in Nuremberg, where, when people get married, they ceremonially drink out of these cups. And so my brother lived over there, and he brought one of these home for my parents. And so they have one at their house. So the reason that this was really significant for me is because I had gone to sleep the night before, really struggling back and forth with this philosophy of, in order to empathize with another person, you have to suppress yourself and give the other person preeminence, right? Whereas there's another camp that believes that, and I do see the value of both sides of this, but where, in order to understand, in order to fully understand empathy and what it might be, you have to recognize that it's all going to be subjective, and so the self takes preeminence, like your own personal perspective. Because, I mean, if you and I, you and I, we're talking to each other right now, and we're in the same conversation, but everything that happens is going to be filtered through my lens and through your lens. And so everything I'm saying you're filtering it through the lens that you have, and everything you say is filtered through the lens that I have. So that's just part of this, like philosophical debate back and forth, of which is better, the self or the other in empathy. And so that's why it was a moment of clarity for me. Because so I went to sleep thinking about this, stressing about it. I had a dream that I was trying to drink out of a cup that had a divider down the middle, and I was trying to drink out of one side and the other side was spilling everywhere. And then when I woke up, I had this image pop into my mind of this, the ceremonial wedding cup. That is, it's supposed to symbolize that we come together and we both get something out of it. And so that's the version of empathy that I I really feel passionate about, and that's the version of empathy that I want to continue working toward. Is something where it really does bring my perspective and your perspective together and recognizing, yeah, it's never going to be perfect, but we can come to a place where we can both benefit from it.
Okay, so I was just thinking that head wanted to do the empathy circle with you, just so we could have that as a common reference. Yeah, and since we don't have full, you know, four people for but we can use you, we could try active listening with each other. So it's kind of like that. So, and I can start by and so you'd be the speaker you just spoken, and I'd be the active listener. So I'm going to reflect back my understanding of what you just said. Okay, so you're saying that there's two as I understand, there's two camps. One says that you with empathy. One. That you give yourself up to be with the other person, and the other is that you're totally grounded in yourself when you listen to the other and those are two different positions you're sort of struggling with that, you know, with that and that you have this sort of a merging of the two that you listen and that cup that you had this sort of represents that you're you're sort of giving yourself up and that you're connecting, you're focusing on the other person. That's sort of what I was getting so far.
I think that's a good understanding of it. So in the context of the empathy circle, at this point, you have reflected, and now you talk, is that right
until you feel heard, you can just tell me, Oh, I do think I feel heard. Okay, feel feel heard. So, yeah, so I yeah, I don't see that. It's a so on the point of giving yourself up, I think it's not that you give yourself up, but that you bring forward your empathy. So, yeah, so I'll pause there if you want to reflect that.
So it's not about giving yourself up, but it's about bringing your empathy forward.
Yeah, I could bring my judgment forward. I could bring, you know, my anger forward. I could bring a lot of different things forward, you know, you know, in the relationship, or I can bring my empathy forward. So I'm not giving myself up. I'm bringing forward, uh, my empathy.
Okay, so it's a more a matter of bringing it forward. So if I understand correctly, it would be more, um, being honest about your reality and monitoring that a little bit more actively,
not quite it's that, not now I'm speaking, and you're bringing forward your empathy to try to understand what I'm saying, And in sensing into what I'm what I'm expressing. So in that, if we're putting this into the context of the empathy circle, you're not like by listening to me, you're not giving yourself up, you're give you're bringing part of yourself forward to listen to me.
So in terms of bringing a part of myself forward, it is actively choosing to enter into that active listening state,
right? And so you're not giving your you're not giving your whole being up. You're you're bringing part of your being forward and and for me, that it's an important part of me to bring my empathy forward too. So that's kind of how I see it in within the context of the empathy circle. To Can you
explain a little bit more about what that means to bring that part of you forward?
Okay, so the definition what you're saying one side, is saying, Oh, you're giving yourself up. I'm saying that you're not giving yourself up. You're you're sharing the the empathic part of yourself. So you're bringing your empathic presence forward, yeah, in the relationship, okay,
so that part of you exists regardless, but you're just choosing to act on that part of yourself and choosing, I'm going to extend a little bit, if you don't mind, just to see if I understand what you're saying a little bit. So you may have a part of you that is judgmental, but you're choosing to not bring that part of you forward
Exactly. Yeah, and that makes sense. So and we, and we're showing that in the empathy circle, you're now listening to me, and you're bringing your empathy forward, and I feel heard and understood by what you were saying. So and So, yeah, I'll, I'll stop there. I feel fully heard though. Now it's your turn to speak.
Okay, here's gonna be the hard thing for me when I am fully engaged with what the other person is saying. And I think this is a good thing in a lot of ways, but I almost lose what I wanted to say because I'm so focused on what you were going to say. And like I said, I think that's a good thing in terms of empathizing and in terms of helping you to feel heard. But then when it's my turn to talk, I almost don't know what to say.
Yeah, so what I'm hearing there is that this is something that happens with you, is that you so. Focused on listening and trying to understand the other person that then when it becomes your turn, you're sort of emptied. You don't even know what you wanted to say. You sort of lost what it is that you wanted to say.
Yeah, that's exactly how I feel. Do you have any recommendations?
Oh, and you're wondering if there's any recommendations that I have for that? Yeah, that's right. Is there more?
Um, no, I'm just curious if you have thoughts on on how to how to manage that without having an agenda, because there are times when I have an agenda and it's like, Okay, I've got to get through this question that, like, the last time that we met, I had an agenda. It wasn't an empathy circle, right? And I had specific questions that I wanted you to answer. So when you were done with one question, I moved on to the next question, whereas in this setting, I'm very much focusing on reflecting back to you, and then when it's my turn to talk, I feel a little bit lost. Okay,
so before when we talked, you had an agenda, and you could go from one question to the next and kind of operate from that agenda, but now with the reflective listening process, when it's your turn to speak, you feels lost. Then you have you're just curious how to deal with with that. Yeah, that's exactly right. And you can say, when you're done speaking, you can say, I feel fully heard. Just I feel fully heard, okay, I think what you did, sharing your experience, is kind of what you do, what I try to do. It's like, right? It happens to me exactly too, is that I'm so focused, and then it's like my brain goes kind of empty, but I share the emptiness of my brain, of my mind, because that's where I really am, right? We're kind of being honest about where we are, so I do that as well. So if
I understand you correctly, this is something that happens to you as well when you're in empathy circles. Is you do have that, that part of you that fully is engaged in listening to the other person, and you then feel that emptiness, but then you're able to share that emptiness with them, and so they understand where you are at that moment. Is that right?
Exactly, yeah, which is what you had done as well. And then I'll just sort of sit with it and see what arises next. So I'll just sit you know, there's no urgency that you have to speak right away. And if I just sort of sit with it, I can see what sort of arises next in my awareness. Hmm.
So if you just sit with it, then I know you've mentioned this in the past in some of the videos. What is alive in you in that moment, is that what you're talking about? Yeah. Okay, so whatever arises in you, maybe is the next thing that you start talking about. So it's not as much about an agenda as it is. Here I am right now. And this is, this is what I want to share. Is that right?
Correct? Yeah, so, and then the other part is, is the empathy circle? You see that we're doing speaker listener shifting. So I think that that. So we're giving time for the speaker to share their own experience and to be heard. But then we're turn taking, right? So it's this constant turn taking. So I think that addresses that polarization, giving yourself up totally versus it totally being about yourself. So I think helps address because it's a this turn taking that happens. Yeah,
so the Turn taking is what addresses the assumed polarization, the dichotomy between giving myself up or recognizing that my perspective matters more. It's more of finding that balance between in the space between the two people.
And a lot of people talk about, oh, I do all the listening in my family, but nobody listens to me, so empathy is terrible. I do all the listening, and I say, Well, what you need is an empathy circle. You need to bring your family into an empathy circle, so most everybody gets time to speak and be heard.
So a lot of people will come to you and say that they don't feel like empathy is a good thing because they do all the listening, and it becomes a one sided relationship that ends up being a bit seemingly co dependent where there's, there's a scale. I guess I'll talk about this in a minute, but, but yeah, do you feel heard on that point? Yeah, I feel fully heard. Okay? That just reminds me of a scale inside. Psychology research that I found that's called the unmitigated communion scale, and it's looking at people's tendency to give and give and give and give to the point that it is damaging them psychologically and sometimes even physically. And so I think that's what one sided empathy looks like, is when you don't recognize that it needs to be both sides of it. Yeah,
there's even a scale about this, like people who just give and give and give to their their detriment. And there's a scale for that and that that's an issue with empathy.
Yeah, that's right. And I think in a lot of the psychology research, they're not considering the other person in this so they're in this paper that I'm working on. A really interesting thing that I didn't even know in the psychology research that has surfaced in this paper is that we're really preoccupied with the study of the self. So even in social psychology, where it is, you know, looking at groups of people and interactions between people, it there's no understanding or valuing of the other, it's all about the self. And so when we're talking about other people, it's still in the context of what effect that has on the self. And so no wonder the field of psychology is getting empathy wrong. If there's no if there's no understanding and valuing of the other person in the relationship.
Yeah. So from your looking at psychology for the study, there's always reference around the individual, so it doesn't include the other and so of course, psychology is getting empathy wrong because it's so individualistically oriented.
Yeah, and I think that what that ends up, what ends up coming out of that is not just a low level of narcissism, but also when we help people, we help them from a perspective of, oh, either I have all the answers or this is the way I would want to be helped, and we're not thinking about what's best for the other person.
Yeah, what this individualistic mindset does is that it's it's not necessarily helping the person what what they're needing. It's more like what I would need. So it's kind of coming from an individualistic thing. There's a little bit more to it than that, but yeah,
and just to give a little bit more context on that, my background before I had kids, was in international development work. I don't know if I mentioned that to you, but I did work in West Africa, and all of my studies, I actually studied that for my undergrad, is the best way to help other people. And so I was coming at it from a perspective of, it doesn't matter what I want. What matters is what's going to help them the best. And so I'm going to do the best that I can to help them to reach their goals, whereas other people that I worked with who didn't have that educational background really had this mindset of, Oh well, I figured it out, or we collectively as Americans, have figured out development and happiness, whatever that might mean to people. And so we're going to either give money or force solutions on people, because we know what's going to make them happy. And I got out of that field because I felt so much dissonance between what felt right to me from the educational background that I had, and what I was seeing in the field like it wasn't actually helping people. And there was people in from the United States that they really thought of themselves as, and this is a terrible term for it, but kind of white saviors. And I thought that that was it was doing, not just not helping, but it was actually doing more damage, because it was furthering, like, further entrenching this feeling of dependency. And we can't do it on ourselves. We need you to fix our problems for us. Yeah.
So this individualistic approach ties into the international development work that you were doing, where, when you came into, you know, working in West Africa that you tried to see what people support people and what they were needing for their development, so more of a empathizing with them, whereas most of the people in the field is sort of like, we have all the answers. We're just going to project it, project those answers on to you. And. And it's kind of more of a self centered field, and it just was very dissatisfying, and that's what you think was even damaging. So you left the field, yeah.
And so when I decided to come into psychology research, I actually didn't realize that the whole field of psychology doesn't see it the way that I learned. And so the first conference I went to, I brought up just a very simple question to a group of people. They were looking at pro social behavior. So how do we get people to help more? Because we know that helping makes people happy. But my question was, well, what about the way that they're helping there. There are ways that we help that are not actually helpful to the other person. And it was like a moment of, Oh, we've never thought about that ever. I mean, they people who had spent their careers looking at, how do we get people to be more kind? And these are good things. It's good to have a society where people are more kind and more giving, we know that everybody is going to be more happy, but if we're not looking at the impact on the person that we're helping, then that's only half of the picture.
Okay, so you when you came into the field of psychology, it seemed to be also sort of individualistically oriented, and it's like, it's almost like the it had the same pattern as in the international development pattern, that it's like we have the answers, instead of really hearing what the other person needs and what what it is that they're they're sort of wanting, is that? And you brought that up, and they were sort of like, hadn't really thought about that. Yeah,
yeah. I feel heard. Okay,
yeah. I don't know if you saw the video. I started the definitions that have the presentation was just like the very first rough draft that I did at the empathy Summit. So I was kind of giving the model, and I'm calling it holistic empathy, and I think that's sort of what holistic empathy does. This sort of addresses, you know, more what you're talking about.
Yeah, I did see that it was you had been talking about addressing it as more of a holistic approach to empathy. And you're hoping to continue this conversation bringing people in to look at the definitions of empathy, and the empathy circle kind of addresses some of those failings in some of the definitions where we we want to look at it from more of a holistic perspective. Yeah.
And then, in fact, yeah, it that empathy is seems to be primarily defined in an individualistic terms, like I as an individual or you as an individual, empathize versus that we're actually in a relationship, in an empathic relationship, and what's the level of empathy in that mutual relationship?
So it generally has been defined as more of an individualistic I feel empathy, or you feel empathy. But what you're proposing is that it's something that's in that space between us where there is empathy that's happening here. Is that right? Yeah,
exactly. And then the when people are saying in their family, they're the one that does the listening, and the other person doesn't listening, doesn't listen. So empathy has a problem. Is is problematic? I would say it's it's not the empathy that's the problem. It's the lack of empathy. So it's actually the empathy deficit than the relationship. That's the problem. Yeah?
So rather than it being empathy, that's the problem in a one sided relationship, it really is a deficit of empathy in the relationship. So rather than it just being empathy that itself, that's a problem. It is more of a misalignment of where the empathy should be.
Yeah. And you have all these books coming out now, there's the against empathy, against empathy book. And, you know, I can go into the I can map that onto an empathy circle. There's another book coming out, the toxic empathy, toxic empathy, yeah, and then there's another one that's out or coming out, it's suicidal empathy. So there, there are a couple of them are sort of more, I would say, right leaning books that are critical of empathy and the and the problem is, they're not seeing holistic empathy. They're seeing sort of partial empathy and the problems of that
right? And so the way that has been defined has given rise to a few different books, including against empathy, which I have read, toxic empathy, which I haven't read, and coming out, suicidal empathy, which is really looking at the. Detriments of empathy, but it seems like they have a misunderstanding of this concept of empathy. And
there's another one called the dark side of empathy too, which I did have a video of the interview with the author of that so I think that all the I think the main thing is, it's a definitional question. It's like, how are we defining this? Because against empathy, book, I actually agree with, you know, Paul Bloom, like the criticisms he has of the phenomena. The only thing is, it's not, I wouldn't. I would say that what he's criticizing is the lack of empathy, but calling it empathy. And I think that these books, you know, within a holistic definition, are criticizing the lack of empathy versus, you know, kind of empathy.
Yeah. So there's another book called The Dark Side of empathy that you have interviewed the author. I would love to see that recording, by the way, so you have interviewed that person, and basically all of these books are looking at more of an empathy deficit than a true holistic form of empathy, yeah,
and it's usually the the criticism, every criticism that they're making about empathy, I would say it's actually what you're criticizing is the lack of empathy, right? So holistic you're criticizing the lack of holistic empathy. I actually agree with your criticism that you're that you're making because but I would say that you're actually just saying it. There's a lack of empathy there. And so, yeah, that's
so if I understand you correctly, you would, you would say that you actually agree with a lot of their criticisms, because what they're criticizing is a lack of empathy, rather than the kind of empathy that we're talking about,
yeah? And that's why Yeah. And I think that's why a clear definition, well articulated, you know, holistic empathy is so needed, because the whole, yeah, I totally see that in the therapeutic world psychology, psychology is all it's coming from this individualistic viewpoint, which is, you know, it's one viewpoint, but it's Only one viewpoint, you know, versus a relational view,
right? And the I've lost the first part of what you were saying there, because I was this psychology
is coming from that individualist, just reiterating what you've said, that you've saw the individualism of psychiatry, psychology and viewpoint, and that relational, you know, view, I think is, I think is more accurate for one Yeah.
Okay, so a relational view is going to be more accurate than psychology is view and psychiatry's view and clinical view of it being about the individual, yeah. And so I remember what you said at the beginning of that as well, now that it was we need to come up with a clear, clear definition of what holistic empathy is.
Yeah, I feel very heard.
Okay. I want to piggyback on what you're saying, because this is, this is something that has really been frustrating for me over the last couple of years studying this, because when you get into the literature, you find they're using the term empathy to mean different things. And so it's an umbrella term that when I enter into a conversation with somebody about empathy, or I read a paper that's about empathy, I think that we're talking about what you're saying, which is that relationship between the two people, where each person feels heard, but come to realize that they're using a very different definition of what it is. So sometimes they're using it to mean emotion contagious. Sometimes they're using the term to mean emotional understanding. So like understanding, I would feel that way too. I would feel angry if this had happened to me, but once again, that's bringing it back to me. Or it can be perspective taking, or it can be not necessarily perspective taking, but cognitive awareness of the other person's viewpoint. And so those are very different psychological processes. And they're, they're very different concepts. Yes, they're, they're linked to each other, because sometimes they do happen at the same time, like I I can have the emotion contagion, where I can, all of a sudden I feel like anxiety, because somebody near me feels anxiety. And so then I try to understand that, so I become aware of the emotion, and then I try to see what fact. Are happening around the person that led to that. So I've got that cognitive awareness, and then I'm trying to see it from their perspective. So yes, they do happen in tandem with each other, but they're not the exact same process. And so what you're talking about with Paul Bloom several other people who have been berating empathy recently, they're looking at things. They're looking at it specifically from the emotional standpoint, from the individualistic I'm trying to reduce this aversive arousal is what they refer to it as, right? And so I feel distress at your pain, and so I'm trying to get rid of my pain that I feel because of your pain. So I'll stop there for a minute. Okay,
so from you've been reading, you know, reading on the psychology, the studies of empathy, and you're just seeing that there's so many different ways people are defining empathy, and just, you just going through some of the different ways that they're defining it, and they're all different phenomena that they're talking about. So, and the same thing with Paul Bloom, you know, he's talking about emotional contagion, or what have you. So you're just sharing that. There's just a lot of different definitions of empathy, and they're probably not seeing it from sort of a relational lens, that which is actually how you're looking at it when you read this, and you realize that they're not really looking at it through through that with that definition, right?
So when I first saw the title against empathy, I it was probably a year before I was brave enough to read the book because I thought it was gonna go against everything I believed in. But then when I finally was like, Okay, I just need to understand the other side, I got into it and I realized, and I'm grateful that he, early on, laid out, these are not the definitions that I'm going off of, and these are, this is the definition of what I'm going off of. And his definition is that emotional, personal distress that you feel at another person's distress. And when he said that, I thought, oh, I should have read this book a long time ago, because I agree with you 100% because when we're looking at it from an egoistic, individualistic standpoint, yeah, it is. It is a negative thing. But that's not this holistic version of empathy that that you're talking about and that I would like to to help promote as well. Yeah,
so you're even had a lot of trepidation about even reading the against empathy book, because you thought I would sort of shake up your understanding and your of empathy. But then when you read it, you realized he was really talking about emotional contagion or your anxiety response, and it wasn't even that you actually agreed with the criticisms he had of those phenomena, and that you're really wanting to promote this relational empathy that we're talking about, yeah, yeah.
And I, in this moment, I feel really excited to find somebody in you who's also looking at it from this perspective, because I don't feel like there are very many people who are looking at it from this perspective, yeah,
you're excited to be talking about this with me from this perspective, because there's not many people looking at empathy through this perspective, yeah,
yeah. So really, I had a point on Saturday when I was working on a philosophy paper that I I I just, I had to put my head down on my desk and think, why are we even doing this? Why are we studying this phenomenon if we're not using it to help make the world a better place, a place where people have better relationships and have better interactions, like across partisan lines or across race lines, if it's not actually translating into something that's going to help them, then why are we spending all this time debating about these definitions?
Yeah, so you're just putting your head down Saturday, maybe a little frustrated, or what, I'm quite sure, what the emotion was there, if it's if all these debates aren't really helping people, you know, move improving their lives, and they're just sort of sitting with that question, like, why bother?
Yeah, yeah. And, and what I came out of that with was I really think that we need to split it out and we need to define each one of those sub phenomena individually. And I mean, because they are real, they're real things that happen. People do take on the emotions of others. You know, people do see things from another person's perspective. These are things that do happen, and they're very real. And to say. That one is bad and one is good, or that one doesn't happen and the other one does, that would be disingenuous, but I do think that the term empathy has been hijacked, and it has been used to mean things that it wasn't originally intended to mean.
Yeah, it's like, these criticisms are, there's all these different phenomenon, and they're real phenomenon. You have to acknowledge them, and they have their impact, but the deeper meaning, or the meaning of empathy, has been hijacked to apply to all these different phenomenon that, yeah,
yeah. And I have more to say on that, but I want to say I feel heard, because I want to hear your thoughts on that.
Yeah, the in terms of, it's very pleasurable to be, have be talking with someone who sees things you know, from From this viewpoint too, from the that has a deeper experience, that has research, you know, dug deep into the research. And also, you know, has the holistic empathy. You know, understanding is not many people do, yeah, maybe they do intuitively, but not sort of where they can articulate it. Yeah,
it is. You're saying that it is also pleasurable to be able to enter into conversation with somebody who has dug into this and has seen it from all these different angles that people are looking at it, and somebody who still sees it from the perspective that is more of a holistic approach.
Yeah, and I think that so that's one part is to have that holistic approach to empathy. The second part is to have a minimal viable structure process, which I see the empathy circle is like, here's a minimal viable structure that you put people into, and they have to empathize. It fosters. It helps build that relational empathy, because each person is, you know, stopping you have free speech. On one hand, you can say anything you want, and the person that you're speaking to is going to reflect back and try to understand what you're saying. So you have total freedom to be open, and the other person will try to reflect back, understand to the best you know, until you feel heard as a you know as the speaker to your satisfaction. So not only do we have the the conceptual understanding, but we have a structure that sort of holds the minimal viable essence of the holistic empathy. Okay,
so you're saying that empathy, the holistic empathy, is a great concept, but the way that we actually put it into practice is this minimum viable structure, is that what you called it of the empathy circle, that allows people to have total freedom to say whatever they need to say. But the structure of the empathy circle itself requires that the other person is listening and reflecting back, and then the person feels heard. And then they they take place, they switch places, and so they're giving both people, or all four people, the opportunity to feel heard.
So yeah, and in terms of the definitions, we can define the terms within the context of the empathy circle and point specifically to what's happening in the empathy circle to have a model to keep it from getting to out there. You know, very ethereal. It's, it can be, here's, here's, we can record the actual phenomenon, and then point it out within the context of what's happening in the empathy circle. You can take part in the empathy circle, and you can actually experience the phenomenon that's happening. Yeah,
I like that so much. So rather than getting caught up in the ethereal debates back and forth where we're talking about definitions, when we put it into the context of an empathy circle, um, it gives us a chance to experience the phenomenon in real time, and we can point out what's happening as it's happening, yeah,
so we can Actually role play. Uh, Paul blooms criticism, you know, I can rant and rave and be totally angry, and then you can rant and rave and be totally angry too. And we can mirror that, you know, we can role play that. And then you can actually feel what that feels like. I'll, I'll feel like, Hey, you didn't hear me. You're just, you know. And you'll feel like, you know you we can actually look at all these different phenomenon that people are talking about and bring it into the empathy circle and demonstrate it and role play it and have something tangible to work with. I
like that. I like the idea of role playing it. So you said that you. You could play the role of Paul Bloom, and you could rant and rave about your perspective, and you could experience what that would feel like. And then I could role play a different perspective, and we could experience that. Maybe we could call it a verse of arousal in real time, and experience how we could work through those different misunderstandings and come to a place where we understand each other better.
Yeah, and for example, is that book on the I think it's toxic empathy. It's, it's, it's toxic empathy, how progressives manipulate conservative compassion, or something like that. So what she's saying is that progressives are selective in their empathy, like they empathize with the the illegal immigrants coming across the border, but they don't im they don't empathize with the people that has an impact on so which I agree with, that a lot of times progressives do that, but you can role play it in the empathy circle, like, I'm a progressive, you know, you're a conservative, you're an immigrant, and then somebody else's, you know, something. So we can actually role play the situation in the empathy circle, right?
No, I like that idea. So in the book toxic empathy, she's talking about, I would assume that it's written from the perspective she's probably conservative Christian, okay, so she's saying that progressives have hijacked conservative compassion, and they say that progressives empathize with, say the illegal immigrant
or the victim. It could be the victim would be another, yeah, okay, say that again, they could be like the perceived victim in a situation. Okay, so that's not, that's yeah, that's part of it, yeah. Okay, so
in that, in that case, it might be they empathize with the victim, but not their their view of who the victim is, but then they don't empathize with, um, somebody on the other side of it, who they see as the perpetrator.
Yeah, and there's and there's a and there's a point to it, that the empathy circle is about bringing all stakeholders into the circle. So you want to bring in the illegal immigrant, you want to bring in all the parties. And a holistic empathy is where all the parties, people who are losing their jobs, let's say, or something, because of illegal immigration. So the empathy circle, the holistic empathy circle is bringing in all the participants who stakeholders in the experience. Yeah,
okay, so what you're saying is that you would bring in the different stakeholders, either in terms of role playing, or actually people who are those different stakeholders in real life. So you would have the illegal immigrant and the person whose job is being taken by people who are coming in illegally. And you you have a conversation, so you can get an understanding of how this situation is impacting everybody.
Yeah, and that's again, addressing one of the criticisms, you know. So you bring, again, we're bringing one of the criticisms into the empathy circle to explore it and and explain, explain the situation which is true. You know, selective, just listening to one party and not the other is not holistic empathy. Holistic empathy is, you know, all sides in the issue having a voice, right?
So holistic empathy is going to give voice to all sides, and so you bring the different criticisms into the empathy circle so that you can give voice to them, rather than just having empathy for people who share the perspective that you know, if you, if you didn't bring one side of it into the empathy circle, then it wouldn't be holistic empathy Exactly.
Yeah. And then the other point is, with the empathy circle is it's very it problem solves. It's a it's a functional it improves people's lives, I would say, because people who haven't been heard, people who are lonely, people who need personal support, people who haven't been stakeholders in the dialog, they it, they get, you know, to be part of the of the dialog. So it's, it's very effective, and so it has that practicality that you're talking about. It improves people's lives.
Yeah, so it's a really practical approach where people who haven't felt heard in the past, or they might feel lonely or like they haven't been seen as a stakeholder, you bring them in, and they can actually start solving problems more effectively.
And the last point I'm going on a long time here, but it. It's the, if you're familiar with human centered design, where, where you're doing, you know, out of Silicon Valley, the whole design community, they have a principle, you know, design process, that if you're designing anything, the first thing you need to do is empathize with the needs of the people you're designing for. Right? It takes empathy. Is core to the whole human design process. Everything in our world is designed. Somebody had to empathize with the needs. So it's very functional in terms of designing anything you kind of need it. So, yeah,
so bringing it back into the human centered design approach that is used widely in even Silicon Valley. We're looking at the the experience of the user of the product. And so empathy is integral to the the way that our our human world is designed is because we look around and everything that we see around us was designed by somebody who had empathy for the needs of somebody
else. Yeah, I feel very heard. Yeah, thank you. Okay, that's
really cool. Um, I had some thoughts, and I'm trying to remember what they were. One thing that is at the forefront of my mind over the last few days is I need to design an experiment, um, that, so I need to design an experiment that I'm going to actually run here on campus, bringing people into the lab and having them interact with each other. And so the empathy circle design is something that really it is very intriguing to me that could be something that could be studied to see, because I know that when we were originally communicating via email, you said that this hasn't really been empirically researched yet. So I think that this could be a good opportunity to bring it into a psychology research lab, and we could look at what is what? What are the outcomes like? How do people feel differently when they engage in this kind of structured empathy circle, as opposed to just throwing them into it and leaving them to their own devices to try and figure out how to solve a problem?
Yeah, so you're, you're needing to do some studies, you know, in your lab, and you're thinking of studying the empathy circle, and you've heard me say that it hasn't been, you know, well studied. Hasn't been studied, really, and, and so you're looking at the comparison of people just coming together, they're thrown into having dialogs, versus do it having an empathy circle. So maybe a comparison of the two experiences. Yeah,
so the design of the experiment that I have right now is where I will bring in politically polarized individuals, and there's going to be a control group that has no guidance given, and then three other groups, one where they're told to empathize with the other person's perspective. And again, this isn't, this isn't going to the way that I have already designed. It doesn't have the empathy circle in mind. It's just keeping the instruction very minimal. But now I'm wondering if I need to shift that so there's the control group, then the empathy group, then there's another group that's going to be stick to your convictions, so whatever you believe, try and convince the other person of it. And then a fourth group, which would be empathize and stay with your convictions. And I wonder if that fourth group, it would make sense to have it be an empathy circle, where it gives them that opportunity to voice their conviction, but then also it gives them the structure where they can learn to empathize with the other's person. It doesn't mean they have to agree with it, but the reason I want to look at these individually, the empathy condition and the conviction condition, is that a lot of times when we're told to empathize with other people, we don't know what that means, and so we just let go, like I was saying earlier. We let go of our perspective, and then in the conviction condition, we're just holding on so tightly to our perspective that we're not going to allow the other person's ideas or lived experience to make any impact on us. But then the fourth condition is where I hope the magic happens.
So you're looking at the study is to have a couple different groups with different criteria. One criteria is just to meet, to discuss. Are you bringing polarized people together? Politically polarized people and then so one is like, just meet. The other is. Is you telling them to empathize with each other, and another one is to telling them to really hold on to their convictions and try to convince the other people with your conviction. The third, your a fourth, you think you may be like an empathy circle and hold on to your convictions in the empathy circle? Yeah,
so I'm just curious. I wonder if that would work with the empathy circle. It is a very simple design, that's what's so nice about it. But do you think that that's something that would work in a laboratory setting, where we have two people and we give them a brief training on how to run an empathy circle and then let them do it themselves, and then we just observe how they interact with each other. Or do you think they would need more training beforehand? And I feel heard So,
okay, yeah, so you're just wondering what my thoughts are. Do you need some training for the people in the circle? Have a couple of people and just how that could be structured, yeah. And so the first time people get together in an empathy circle, it's good to have a facilitator to hold the practice, because otherwise people just start talking. You know, they kind of drop the practice and go into just regular talking. So it's good to have someone familiar with the practice that hold all they do is hold it. Yeah. They take part, but they hold it.
Okay. So the first time that you bring people into an empathy circle, if they don't have a facilitator there, they often will drop the practice and they will just start talking, and they'll forget about the reflecting portion.
Yeah, so I think it's, yeah, I think it'd be great. I mean, the empathy circle is great for polarized issues. We've done it like a pro life pro choice discussion. And, you know, we went for two hours, and you know, you really surfaced a lot of the deeper issues instead of staying at this, you know, kind of just an argumentative heard some really, you know, touching stories that I think connected everyone to each other's humanity. So,
so you're saying that you have effectively used the empathy circle in a lot of polarizing settings. Would be IT pro life, pro choice, and other things that are very politically polarizing, and you've been able to bring people together where they see their common humanity and they hear each other's touching stories, and it it is much less argumentative when it's in the circle.
Yeah, I think anybody, I think, to have the comparison between the different groups and what the feedback is and the experience, I think would be really helpful to show the comparison of those. So I'm super excited about, you know about the potential for that? Yeah,
so you're excited about the potential to be able to see the comparison between the different groups, to see what the different outcomes would be,
I'd be glad to help in any way too, you know, to help, help. Great.
Thank you. Yeah, you would be, you would be glad to help in any way that would be needed. Thank you for that. And
I think I had sent you the video, no of the the Trump phobia, what both sides fear. Video where we take the empathy tent out to public places.
I know I've seen some videos of that, so just to reflect back, you had sent a video about the Trump, pro Trump, anti Trump kind of stuff, and you've taken the empathy 10 to different places. I've seen some of that, but I'm not sure if it's something that you've sent me or if it's things that I've read.
Yeah. So it was a documentary that sort of featured it, you know. Or when last time Trump was elected, you know, it's all these demonstrations around the country. She went to all these demonstrations, and she came to Berkeley. We were with the empathy tent, where we would listen to both sides and Fauci have empathy circles. And then she invited us to LA where she was doing her film studies. And we were at a rally, impeach Trump rally, and we did the same thing. Had six pairs of people, one from each side. You know, we that I facilitated, and of the six pairs, five of them gave each other hugs at the end of the empathy circle and and across the street, they're screaming and yelling at each other. So I, I've just seen you know that it really does. I think it would have a real impact on Yeah,
yeah. So you were saying that there, there was a documentary filmmaker who was attending a lot of Trump impeachment rallies back at the time when he was elected the first time. Is that when it was, yeah? Hmm, okay. And then she came to your the rally that was at Berkeley, and she saw your empathy tent, and then invited you to come to Los Angeles, where there was another rally. And you had six pairs of people, six from each side. And by
the end, yeah, one from each side, six times we did that. Oh, okay.
I Okay, so you had, you had just pairs, pairs. I mean, okay, that makes sense. So pairs six different times, and by the end, five of the six pairs ended up hugging each other, whereas across the street, people were screaming at each other and picketing and rallying. That's, that's that makes me emotional, because that's, that's exactly what, what we're capable of. And I think that's great. You're doing really good work, yeah,
so I hear it making you emotional, and it's really what you think. That's really great work, because it's very meaningful that you Yeah,
yeah, and I'm sorry, keep going. I just had to interject that, because that was the moment
I just put the that's the video. Thank you. Just 11 minute flip of the of the essence of of the documentary. So, yeah, yeah, I feel fully heard. Glad to support that. I think it'd be really, really great. I think it's a really, it's a wide open field of study, the empathy circle, you know, and this mutual empathy and relational empathy, yeah, so very excited to hear those ideas. Okay, so
you're feeling excited about the prospect of getting some some research done on it, and it's a wide open field of research. There's a lot of possibilities for application of this and ways that we can research it.
Yeah, I feel heard. Okay, thank you
again. My mind is blank, blank. This might take some work for me, because I'm used to thinking about, Okay, once we get to that lull in the conversation, what's going to be the next thing that I say,
Yeah, usually you're kind of preparing yourself for the next thing to say, the lull, and you're so focused on listening to me that you haven't prepared, so you're kind of having to get used to this, like, what's the next thing that comes up for you?
Yeah, yeah. I feel hurt. That's really all I have to say at the moment. Okay, yeah,
that's it for now. Yeah, the other thing that came up for me is the definitions, you know, how to sort of approach the definition I I'm gonna be, you know, focusing on that more and more. So, yeah, see if there's, I guess, if there's other people, do you know others who have sort of a holistic view of empathy and have sort of an academic background? It'd be great to have a, you know, a four person empathy circle, you know, to
Yeah, it would be great to have a four person empathy circle with people more in the academic world that have more of this holistic view of empathy. Do you mind if I respond to that,
yeah, if you hold on, it was your turn, okay? And what I find, too is in the empathy circle, because you've been a silent listener, you're more ideas. Kind of I tend to have ideas pop up. I just write them down as I go along. Then I addressing sort of that, oh, I'm out of ideas. I jot them down.
Okay, so in order to address that moment where you're you're fully in, immersed in listening to the other person, and you you have ideas when you're the silent listener, but then when you get to the end and you're reflecting back, you forget them, you just jot them down so that you are able to retrieve them later. Yeah, I feel heard weird. Okay, so with regard to the definitions I I have reached out to a few different researchers, and I haven't had a lot. Of success with connecting with people who have more of a holistic approach to it, specifically because I'm within psychology and there's just such a such a penchant toward the self, that there aren't a lot of people who see it this way. But I am holding a lot of focus groups, like I held with you and and Sam, where we're just getting a lot of different perspectives on it. And so I'm finding those those groups are really i. They're very enriching, but it also is not a group of people where they're thinking about this 24 hours a day like you and I are.
Yeah, so you're doing these focus groups where you're asking people about empathy and this. They're very enriching, but there's not, they're not sort of dedicated 24 hour on this topic, like you and you and I think about it. Yeah,
there is one academic that I've connected with, and she has an approach. She's actually wanting to start up a discussion group. She calls it 3q so there's integrating your intelligence, your emotional intelligence, and what she calls your moral intelligence, and so bringing those three worlds together. And she wants to have discussions on a monthly basis where we can talk about how we can integrate those three better. I think she would be somebody who would be interested in this sort of
thing? So you do have some, someone that's working on three cues, three different aspects. I wasn't quite clear what those were, but she might be interested in this. Yeah.
And so my background, I studied a lot of emotional intelligence, and so it's looking at not just empathy, not just seeing things, not, you know, a social acumen, but also looking at it from the internal side of it as well. So emotional intelligence is internal and external, which kind of that really seems like it bridges that gap between, you know, the self and the other. And then she's taking it up to another level, where you include not just your emotional intelligence, but your, you know, intellectual intelligence. And then you have a moral component to it, where you're looking at the so what like, what is the ethical choice that I should make in this situation?
Yeah, so she's looking at the emotional but also the intellectual, and then also the ethical part of it, so kind of trying to look at those three different aspects of oneself.
Yeah, so I can reach out to her and see if she would be interested, but she wants, she wants to meet once a month, where we can continue to talk about our research and see where it goes from there.
Okay, so you could reach out to her the meeting once a month.
Yeah. And there's also, like, I told you about the philosopher that I'm working with. He works here at Brigham Young University, and he he he asks all of the same questions that I've been asking about empathy research. I don't know if he would be open to it. I don't know him well enough to know, but I could, I could put my feelers out and see if he would be interested in joining an empathy circle.
Yeah, so the philosopher who you mentioned before, I see if he's interested in joining an empathy circle, because he's sort of in line with all these questions that we've been talking about.
Yeah, the only problem there is that he told us straightforward. I was in a class with him, and he told us straightforward, you are allowed to argue with any of the other professors, but don't ever argue with me. He was joking, but he is very much a I know what's right, and not really open to to seeing things from other people's perspectives sometimes, which is ironic, because he studies
empathy. Yeah, he studies empathy, but he's kind of joking that he's right, and maybe it's not so open to other perspectives. So
if you're, if you're going to joke like that, makes me think that there's probably some truth to that.
Yeah, might be some truth.
Yeah. So that's where I am with that. I I'm definitely willing to reach out to them to see if that, if we could continue this conversation.
Okay, then you could reach out. We could drop the active listening, if, for now, just discuss, if you're sure. So, yeah, I can also reach out. It's, you know, I know a lot of people, but you know, people are tied up. We've done stuff before. It's just seeing who has the time. You know how often I was thinking of a weekly empathy circle on the definitions. So I really want to, you know, you know, make this a major project to articulate the definitions I we in April, we have another empathy Summit. So I'm kind of working on that slide show to kind of refine it some more. And then in May, there's a another conference to a university in it'll be at UC Santa Cruz that we're going. To be part of. And I was going to do part, like a 20 minute presentation on it there. So, yeah, I'm really wanting to kind of Oh, and then I don't, you know, I don't know if I mentioned it that Susan Lanzoni, who did the history of empathy book, it turns out that she she's working on her book. She wants to do a book, yeah, and so I'm supposed to meet with her next month. She's actually working on her proposal. Then she's going to give it to the agents and try to find a publisher for it. So I told her I was kind of interested in the definitions working on something there so somebody we could talk to. I
think that would be really interesting. I think it's really interesting because I mentioned this a little bit ago, but this is something, as I've been researching and compiling definitions, I've really started to see that over time, the definition has shifted significantly. So for example, like in the early 1900s it was ein foolin. I don't know if you're familiar with that. Oh, yeah, very much. I speak into Yeah, you speak
German, yeah. I have German citizenship, dual national.
You're so lucky, because there's so much of this research where you have to know German to be able to understand it. So the idea of what I was reading on Saturday is that it's, it basically came from looking at art, so like the art that's behind you, and like imbuing it with some sort of emotion. So it's it's there, it's just an object, but you are actually. It's almost like personification, where you're you're attributing feeling to it. And so when that, with that being the original definition, and maybe that's not really the original but that being the definition that has been brought forward into like the American research of empathy, and I mean even the word empathy, we'll even get to that which is separate, but that's different than the definition that there was in the 60s, which was to feel with the person, Right? So it's another person, not an object, right? So it came from this objectification kind of mindset where it's, I you don't have thoughts for yourself or feelings for yourself, and I'm going to inject into you, yeah, what I think your feelings would be. And obviously, if we were to step back and think about it, we're not trying to do that, but that was what the definitions were, and now the definition is no, no, sorry. In the 60s, it was, I'm sorry, I got that backwards. That's the current definition. Back in the 60s, the definition was seeing it from the other person's perspective. So it was more of a perspective taking definition. And so to see that shift, even in the 20th century into the 21st century, that's a that's a massive shift. And so if you're trying to integrate an understanding of this phenomenon over time the way it's been studied over time, we're actually studying different things and using the same word for it. I think that's really dangerous.
Yeah, the one is sort of a projection, right? You're she, she's very much into Rogers, I think is a kind of the core. I mean, Rogers is sensing into the someone else's experience, whereas the original, I feel alone, was a bit like projecting your feeling into your feelings of the other of the artwork, right? So, yeah, it's strange. So it's a little bit, it's kind of like shifted. It's turned around completely, instead of me projecting sensing into so when in terms of the definition, that's what I for me, it's the sensing into definition. Versus, yeah.
So can I reflect back, just to make sure I understand that? Um, so your understanding of it is more of a sensing into Um, can I ask what you mean by sensing into so it is it? Is it an emotional experience, or is it putting yourself in the place of the other person?
Yeah, it's, it's more of a direct ex. It's, it's in the definition that I, I had in that video. It was like sort of a basic empathy sensing into, I'm looking for the term, I'm not quite sure, like when we're in the empathy circle, and, you know, I'm listening to you, I'm sensing into your experience and then reflecting back what I understand your experience is. So that's sort of the essence, the basic and, you know, I can do that with you. I can do it with a photo of you a little bit, you know. Don't do, but I'm sensing into your experience as different, what I'm calling imaginative empathy, where I do a role play and and the role play is, is I am you, and what would, what would come up in me if I was, was you sort of like a Meryl Streep, right? Doing, doing, being Julia Child, he's sort of stepping into that role, you know, she's, she has sort of the idea of Julia Child, maybe you studied her, but she's seeing what comes up in her, in that role, which is a different phenomenon then, you know, just sensing directly in so I think that's different. And we can, we could tie that into, you know, with what children, what? When they're 18 months old or so, they start seeing, you know, the Marianne. What is it the Marianne or Sally Ann, okay, we're the I can't remember where you start having you can start putting yourself into someone else's situation. And so you have have that differentiation. I've tried to make a differentiation, sort of the basic empathy that Rogers talked about, and the imagining part. And sometimes that gets confused into affect cognitive empathy. You know it's, I don't know the cog, it's so muddled what cognitive empathy is, but I know it's hard to even, yeah,
I've, I've read definitions that say cognitive empathy is a cognitive understanding of the emotions or the aspect of the other person, whereas others are looking at a cognitive understanding of the cognitive processes of the other person, which is different. There are different things happening
there. Yeah. So it's like, if we can bring that into the empathy circle, what's happening into the empathy circle to so if we're doing the original definition of einfeeling, it would be, I would see you as a bit like an object that would pre projecting my what's coming up is, I see you right, versus me really listening to you and hearing what what I'm what you're saying, and really Trying to understand you from your own perspective, your own experience.
I almost feel like, since the term has been hijacked in so many different ways and to so many different ends, I almost feel like we need a different word than empathy. Yeah, I mean, how does that sit with you? Like, that would probably entail, like, you'd have to change the name of your organization, yeah, like, active listening is a better term for it, for what you're doing in the empathy circle, because of all of the different misconceptions that there are about what it is we're talking about.
Yeah, well, the active listening is sort of a bit of a crutch for what we do naturally. Anyway. I just think this sort of helps with the basic it sort of helps with the empathic process, because we don't even need to do active listening, but we can just be highly attuned to each other's experience. So I don't know the
empathy circle, if I understand it correctly. The Empathy circle is just a way to train you, yeah, to become better at things that we should just use in more free flowing back and forth conversation. Exactly,
yeah. And I actually have that experience in our family, like I've done empathy circles in our my family, and we go for three hours, you know, doing active listening, and then suddenly we stop doing active listening. But the mindset of being attuned to each other, we're in that mindset, the highly empathic state, where we don't even need to do the active listening. So it's bit more like a training, like you're saying and and also, then, you know, within that highly attuned, empathic state, what happens is sometimes you can drop out of it. Somebody gets triggered by something or upset, and the energy, you can feel the energy shift, and you say, you can then say, well, let's go back to active listening. It's sort of like a safety net that you can go back to get that state that, that state of mind, that way of being so
well, it seems like it helps with self regulation. If you can get back into that, like you said, a safety net. It can be a place where it's like, okay, this gives me a chance to calm down, right? Yeah, and then I can, I can think while I'm the listener, and breathe while I'm the listener, and then when it's my turn to reflect back, hopefully and I will be able to speak in a calmer way,
and that you'll. Feel that you're you're heard. Because a lot of times those conflicts is like, Oh, I'm not being heard in this situation, heard and understood. And that kind of triggers people. So you're going back to, oh, I'm feeling heard now, so now I'm that helps with that regulation, that anxiety, or
so, yeah, this is brilliant. I just think it's the simplicity of it is things that are simple seem like they're not the right answer in a lot of cases, which is why I'm sure a lot of people are like, Oh, that'll never work. Just try it. Just actually engage in an empathy circle, and you'll see that it actually really does answer a lot of those relational issues that you have with people.
Yeah, that's, I think that simplicity is a big part of it, you know, it doesn't, you don't need a degree. You don't, you know, you just, you just have to. And we've done it with, you know, like we had an empathy circle with, we're in Sacramento at a politically right rally, and we set up the empathy tent, and five of the identity Europa group came to the tent, and they're the ones who had, like the tiki torches you know, at Charlottesville. And you know, the topic of the Holocaust came up, and you know my friend or our colleagues who is there. He's Jewish. So the topic, you know, they were sort of Holocaust deniers and and so the leader of the group, he kind of spoke. They were, started getting towards arguing, right? I could hear them, and I turned to them and said, Oh, here we do the empathy circle. So I got him into an empathy circle. They spoke. And my friend reflected back, you know, what they were saying. And the topic was, came up, what does the Holocaust mean to you? And then my friend Dave, he said, Well, to me, the Holocaust is half my family were killed in Austria, and the other half were spread around the world. And the identity aropa person, you know, he's like, Well, I was only the Nazis. Were only fighting the communists and all this kind of stuff. So he was, he kind of made all these rationalizations instead of reflecting back. And my friend said, No, that's not what I said. And he said it again. And the guy was in his head, you know, kind of coming up with not reflecting back. And he did it three or three times, or even four times, and he wasn't kidding it. And then one of his friends who had been doing an empathy circle with someone else, he was younger, and he kind of guy says, Just tell him what you heard him say. And he said, Okay, half your family were killed, and the other half were spread around the world as refugees. And my friend Dave, he said he could just feel the shift that happened like this guy heard me. You know, it's a little tiny thing, but he heard me. And so it was like a step in, in the in the right, right direction. Wow. So anyway, that's powerful. Yeah,
I was actually not to change the subject at all, because this is still within the same subject. But I wanted to say this before we end that I was listening to the the AI read the Scientific American article, and it was pretty cool to realize that I, I am connected with multiple people that were cited in that article. So you being with one of them, Jamil Zaki, and then also Daryl Cameron, so I have reached out to them both on LinkedIn, like we've had very short conversations. Hopefully Darryl Cameron, if it works for his schedule, he's going to be able to meet with me and sometime the next month. So obviously, it would be amazing to have some of these big name researchers involved in an empathy circle. But the realistic side of this is that I know that people who are on their tenure track, they're so busy that they don't have time to have conversations that last an hour and a half. And so what I had mentioned to Daryl is that hopefully I could just chat with him for 20 minutes and just get some of his ideas on some of my research questions that I'm not seeing very clear answers to. So is that, would that be something that would be helpful to have a shortened version of a conversation with some people who are super
busy, yeah, a conversation or an empathy circle, like just, if just giving, getting it spread as widely as possible, I think is, is, you know, within whatever time context is good,
okay, Well, we'll see, well, we'll see what comes out of any of these connections we have with people. Because I think that there's a lot more benefit that comes from a longer conversation like this, but realistically, they're gonna be running off to their next meeting.
Yeah, I go for two hours. I do MPD circles for two hours. Hours,
Yeah, I bet it's so fulfilling,
yeah, but they can be recorded too, you know, yeah,
yeah. So anyway, that's something that I just wanted to put out there, that it might be, it might be amazing to get some, some of those big names, but also not very feasible.
Well, we can try. You know, this is I'm good with doing a weekly meeting. I was, you know, if you don't have time to attend, I was going to just kind of set it up for a weekly empathy discussion circle. And, yeah, put it out there for get something on
the schedule right now, sure this time 11 on Tuesdays works or 10 o'clock your time on Tuesdays works really well for me.
Yeah.
Let's see, next week might have to be shorter there. I have to take my daughter to an allergy appointment at one o'clock. And I, you know what? I don't know if it'll even work next week. No, sorry, that's Monday. I don't know why I was looking at Monday. Yeah, next week.
Talking the fourth i First,
yeah, so the fourth, I was looking at the third. So if we can just put it on our schedule every Tuesday, okay, 10 o'clock, your time, and then just take it as it comes and see if we need to reschedule, if, if important things come up that push it back. But, yeah, this is, this is central to what's important to me with my research, and so I do want to continue these conversations.
Oh, great, yeah. And we record them too. We'll put, I run them. We have the AI report, and I'll put it in Otter AI too, so we'll have, you know, good documentation for it. Yeah,
that would be great, man. This is great. Thank you so much. It's just, I find this very inspiring and reinvigorating, because getting bogged down in the research is sometimes you completely lose sight of why you're doing it. And so this is refreshing.
Well, this is like perfect timing, because it's especially, it's specifically what I'm wanting to work on. So this is like, Wow. This is amazing that, you know, you turned up at this point wanting to work on. So this is great. And also you have the mindset, you know, sort of that holistic empathy mindset, and, you know, the and have the, back the academic understanding of the whole field. I mean, that's not many people you know have that unless they're into the into academics and research and all that
well. And also advantageous is the fact that I am a grad student, and so I'm not as busy, yeah, as some of the other people who are studying this whole time, right? Yeah. So I think this is really beneficial timing on both sides,
oh and next, next. At 12, I actually have a meeting with Anita Novak. I don't know if you know her. She
that name is familiar, but I don't remember who she is.
LinkedIn, put her anyway. She's been doing a lot of work. She also has a PhD in empathy, and she's been doing a lot. I mean, she, she her, she's totally thinking about this. I'm supposed to talk to her a little bit about the definitions too, but I can see if she could come a bit earlier. I'm not super busy. I
mean, it would make sense to meet at the same time if we're talking about the same subject, because I think it would be mutually beneficial all around.
Okay, here, I'll put that link in that's her website. Okay. Oh, Novak, dot, yay.
Okay, well, I'm gonna connect with her. Yeah, definitely seems like somebody we should be connected with. There's another empathy speaker. What is her name? Mimi Nicklin. Have you seen her on LinkedIn or
anything? Yeah, I've had her in the empathy summits and talked to her. Oh yeah,
okay, yeah. She's great. I haven't talked much with her, just quick back and forth, but I follow her on LinkedIn, and she's super great.
All right. Well, I will see you next week. Sounds good? You then?
Yeah. Thank you so much. And if you wouldn't mind sending me the recording and the the AI transcription, that'd be. Super
helpful. I'll send you the link. I'll put it into a document, okay, thank you. Bye, Jody, with the chat.
