Record button and our AI. Have you seen the documents? I've been putting the the the AI recording, Zoom AI and the otter AI from our meetings, you know, in our in the documents. Oh, really, and the video too. So in
the where, what is the name of the site that you putting? Been
putting it on, defining empathy.com, okay. Link in,
okay. There it is.
You'll see it has meetings, and then down to 2025, so I've been putting like me, I can actually do a screen share. So it's just, it's my workspace for this project. Yeah, that's great.
So this is organized, by the way,
yeah, you know what I need to do is, it's like, I'm good at, kind of, like, documenting all this stuff. It's the turning it into a useful document, seems to be my I kind of get impatient with that, you know, the writing and the structuring and and that's what I get got to get better at. So, yeah. So anyway, here's the like the meeting. I just put the video up too. So we got the definition, we got the AI, we got the then the otter AI. That's, think that's otter.
That's incredible. This is so amazing that you can just have this all ready to go.
I know that's it. The AI is amazing. You know, you put it into otter. I don't know if I'm familiar with otter, but it does transcripts. And let's see it's, yeah, I
haven't used it, but you told me about it.
Oh, yeah. And it does, it does a transcript, is a pretty good job. And it also creates a summary. And so I can just see, in the future, you just put all this into you. Just put it into, you know, like AI, as it had, uses this as the base you can just query it, you know, for and kind of get reports. So it's amazing what it sort of does. Yeah, game changer, yeah, for intellectual ideas. So, and then I did put what is our date today? 18. 18. So, you know, just have an agenda. And I don't have an agenda here. I think we're going to kind of review your slideshow, then map it on to the onto the holistic definition, empathy definition, is that where we were last time?
Yeah, so we had gotten through, um, let's see. I mean, like, just we'd been talking about my definitions slide. Um, yeah,
we're going through each of the definitions that you had up there, kind of mapping them from other people, right?
Yeah, and also I probably need to hop I'm so sorry about this, but I think I need to hop off at about 1045, okay, I've got a few other meetings that I need to get to today, and I have some preparations to do before I get to those meetings.
I also started a Friday meeting. So kind of not a Saturday one, Saturday 9am Yeah,
I saw that in your email that you sent out, and have you been having people join for that? Yeah,
had three people. So kind of just kind of, I'm kind of ramping up, kind of want to get this as sort of an ongoing project. You know, he's in so, yeah, I see as sort of a continuing if we can get more people who are, I mean, like, you have the perfect background for this, you know. So if people who are the other person, Violetta, she joined. She has her PhDs in empathy as well. But oh, okay,
you seem like people I want to meet as well. Yeah,
he comes from a phenomenological point of view, but, you know, she's got, well, you have kids too, but she's like, you know, having the work and doesn't have a lot of time for for this, so, right? He's not working on her PhD, like you are like, well, lucky already has it.
I'll get there. Okay. Well, why don't I share my screen
and let me give you co hosts? Okay?
Okay,
let's see I actually want to move this over here. What are you seeing? Are you still seeing my Canva with the definitions I
Oh, you. You were muted. I didn't hear what? Oh,
yeah. I was seeing your the definitions now I see looks like emails,
okay, yeah, sorry. I moved it to a different screen, and I never know what it's going to do.
There we go. I Okay,
so I think at this point it would be helpful to go through the rest of the presentation. We can kind of talk through the philosophical differences in the way that some of these definitions have conceptualized it and the way that you and I have been talking about it.
Okay, they also emailed you a book I just saw. They're talking about group empathy, but had a little bit of a sort of a woke feel to it, you know, where it's more like, oh, empathize. I haven't read the book, so,
yeah, I definitely will want to read that, especially with the political work I start doing. Yeah, I just pulled that up. Thank you for sending that. Okay, so basically, this slide is just kind of showing that there are different some people would call them facets of empathy. But you and I might say that there are different versions of the same, like different things completely, where they're not necessarily all empathy, but other people see them as empathy. So we
need associated words and terms and concepts to empathy.
So yes, there might be some overlap, but I I don't really see these as as really overlapping processes inside the brain. And so I think using the term, well, I guess this next slide, let's see, hang on, that's where I come like, that's where my brain goes with this is like, what are we talking about, right? Yeah, have so many different definitions. And I know I shared this quote with you last week that when we use the same term to mean different things, or different terms to mean the same thing, we end up with a lot of confusion. And so that really seems to be what's happening in the research right now.
It's happening everywhere. It's like, it seems like it's 80% of the confusion. It's just everybody's talking about different terms, yeah,
yeah. And even what Elon Musk said, what was it last week? I mean, that's a that's an interesting, different interpretation of it as well. And so, you know, we can get people all up in arms about it, because we think that they're like, they are berating something that is important to us, but they're not, yeah, so we get upset, but we really don't need to get upset about it.
Yeah, I keep calm about it, too. What I try to do is I try to talk to them. I say, hey, let's have a conversation about this and and that's where I find the problem is the guy that wrote the book that Elon Musk is referencing, God sad sod. And I contacted him and said, Hey, let's have a discussion about he says, I don't have time. So that's where I see the problem is when they don't talk to you
and that, I mean, that's an empathy deficit right there, and they don't see that as a bad thing. They see themselves as sticking to their values, which is really, I mean, that's the research that I want to do. And I know we've talked about this is like seeing where that overlaps, is where I can listen to you and I don't have to feel threatened by what you're saying. And really, the empathy circle does a beautiful job of that.
Yeah, yeah. I would like to bring him in, as I mentioned, you know, with Paul Bloom, he wrote his first article in The New Yorker, and I said, Oh, I'd like to empathize with you. Let's have an empathy circle. And he said, Oh, I don't have time. So a lot of these critics kind of just blow it off to me. To me, it's the opposite. If you have an argument, you want to discuss it with the you know, the best you know, steel man, you know kind of arguments in you know, refine your arguments. So I find it, yeah, strange, yeah.
I agree with that. I mean, especially if you're wanting to disseminate your ideas broadly, you are going to run up. Against people who see it differently, and so if you don't understand where you're coming from, then you're going to be alienating a certain portion of the population, and they won't even want to listen to what you have to say. Yeah, so you run into the same problem that other people are feeling from you, is that you're pushing them away, and then they're going to, in turn, push you away, so then your ideas don't get disseminated as as effectively. Oh, I wanted to tell you also, this is a side note, but I was able to meet with Garrett Cardin. He's the the researcher, the neuroscientist at BYU that you sent me that that information about. All right, yeah, we're going to start collaborating on some projects.
Yeah. So you have to remind me what, what was he said? Something about empathy, right? Yeah,
it was autism and art projects like so they all right, right? They had people look at art and discuss it with each other. And then another phase of it was they had artists take what they learned from qualitative interviews with autistic people and neurotypical people, and turn that into art, and then they could discuss it with each other, to be able to see inside of each other's minds more effectively,
we could do an empathy circle with him sometime. I think that's a
great idea. I think interested. I saw a lot of overlap in the way that we view this and the way that we want to push this work forward. So I'm going to be meeting again with him, not until April, but we're going to start meeting regularly to start working on some projects. Nice, yeah. So next time I meet with him, actually, I'm going to write this down, though I need to. I'm going to email him and see if there would ever be a time that he could join our meeting.
Well, it was a Cambridge. It's the Cambridge that has the autism Institute. The guy, what's his name, wrote the science of evil or something. Yeah,
I don't know a lot about the the autism research, so, yeah,
he's at Cambridge. I enter, yeah. And anyway, it overlaps with empathy. You know, that's where the the empathy in the eyes test came from, oh, okay.
Actually, it was, Did I talk with you about that last week, or did I talk with him about it? We talked about it. Okay, yeah, I just knew that at some point last week, I talked with somebody about it. Okay, so I will reach out to him after this meeting and see if he can join us sometime. I don't know what his schedule will allow, but, yeah, he's, he's very interested in continuing these discussions, so I think he would be a great resource
with Simon Baron Cohen. That's it. Who did? Oh, of course, of course,
yes, of course. If I had just put, put a little more thought into that, I would have, I would have been able to arrive there. Okay, okay. So anyway, I put these in here because these are some studies where they have this one. I actually put the wrong one in here. This is, let me see if I can find the other article. Just a second, I'm gonna find the other article that talks about This. I'm
okay, so it's not the stasic article. I Yeah. Okay, so it's instead of this one by stasik, um, the the article that I meant to put in there is, are we really measuring empathy? Proposal for a new frame, uh, measurement framework, um. And so the reason that I put that in is because what they have found in their research in empathy is that there there's a major disconnect between the way researchers define it, like individual researchers who are just putting in an empathy scale like maybe it's not their their core research topic, but they want to look at the effect of empathy on something else or something else on empathy. And so they choose a random scale that they don't know a lot about. And it turns out that they often will choose a scale that doesn't align with their own definition of empathy, which is really problematic, because then you end up with these results, and you end up with even meta analyzes and a lot of research that is saying that empathy is this where it actually is not they're not even measuring the thing that they think that they're measuring. So I see that as very problematic this article here, you can see Paul Bloom was on this article. It, it, they. Did a linguistic analysis of people's social media posts, and they also gave them an empathy measure. I think it was before they did all of this analysis, but they found that people who rated highly on, I think it was the interpersonal reactivity index they ended up using language in their social media posts. That was very self focused. And when I first saw this article, I was I was really upset. I was like, they must be doing something wrong. What is happening that empathy is being seen as this selfish topic, but now coming to understand more about it. We're again. I This is before I had read Paul blooms book. We're talking about a different version of empathy when when we're studying it this way, versus when we're talking about actually trying to understand the other person's perspective. And so I have some philosophical stuff to talk through with that. This one. I think we talked through that a bit, the timeline of the history of like, the the change in the Word. So I know that you're familiar with this before, and I know you've said that, that you have background with understanding that. But basically, what I what concerns me about ein fueling is that it's it's focused on the individual, and she is infusing her ideas and personality into the art right? So it comes from art appreciation, and it maintains that appreciation depends on the viewer's ability to project his personality into the viewed object. And so if we so, we somehow have taken that term into the way that psychology views empathy. But the problem with that is we're talking about projecting your personality into an object, and so it takes out the subjective nature of the other person. I see that as really problematic.
Yeah, so in an empathy circle would be, instead of listening to what the person is saying, you're saying, Well, you are this. You are that I'm feeling that you're doing this. So you're kind of projecting your feeling of the other person in, onto onto them, versus just listening and sort of sensing into what,
yeah. And so I actually wanted to ask you about that, because you use the term sensing into, just similar to feeling into, I want to understand from you how it is you use that term and what that means to you.
Yeah, the Well, I would say it's like the iron feeling into so as you, as I sit and look at you, I can see your concentration. So I'm feeling your concentration, maybe your curiosity, maybe a seriousness, a feeling of seriousness, and then I can check is, Is this accurate? You know, that's what, that's what the act of listening is. It's sort of a check that helps refine that, that process. So it's me sensing into you as who you are. And it's a whole body experience. It's not just what you're thinking, but you're the wholeness your feelings, your emotions, your thoughts, kind of the wholeness of who you are, sensing into that. So that's the and you know, like and with Rogers now like his definition of I'm accompanying you on your journey, right? It's your, your you have this emotional journey from moment to moment, your your thoughts, your feelings are moving, shifting, you know, every second, even when I say something to you, it stimulates some feeling change in you, or when you say something you know, so you're always changing, and the empathy the feeling into is, I'm feeling along with you and sensing, actually, sensing is broader than just feeling. It's for me, it's the kind of the fullness of who you are and that you're changing from moment to moment. And yeah,
I agree with you that sensing is maybe a better term for it, because sensing includes listening and watching, but then also emotions along. Because if we stick with just emotions where it just it's like we're imbuing the other person with the emotions that we think they should have, right? And so that that can be problematic if that's the only version of it that we're trying to say that empathy is because that be that still, it puts us back into that, that place where, in that article, they're seeing it as a very self focused practice, and
is that? Article is seeing it as sort of like projection or, yeah,
yeah. And so it's and it's also they, the way they see it is you don't really have clear boundaries of self and other, and so you take on other people's distress and you make it your own. And so when you talk about it like in your social media posts, you end up saying, Oh, I'm feeling all of these things. I feel so sad about what's happening in Gaza or whatever, and it still is about you. Yeah. And so from this perspective, with all of these, with the with I'm feeling being part of it, with Freud being part of it, very focused on, almost obsessing about the self. Then it inflates the self, and it really diminishes the other person, which I think the
empathy circle is as it depend. There's the role of, you know, just to you have the listener. If that self is the listener and the other is the speaker, the self would be listening to the other side, right to the other, and sensing into their experience. And then then you sort of shift. So all the stuff that's coming up for the self, we want to give that space too, right? It's like all those things you're talking about, you want a space that that's all relevant stuff, and that's what, that's where the speaker and listener kind of shifting happens. I did, you know, I didn't want to, I was about to say that the self is smaller, but in a sense, it's not because I see the I see the quality of empathy as a quality of onesel too. It's a value that I have so I don't feel diminished. My sense of self is not diminished when I empathize with the other, because I'm just bringing forward a quality of myself to the other so I don't feel like it's like the self is a little tiny thing and the other is big. I feel that myself is sort of a empathic self that's pretty big, but it's able to take in and sense into the other Yeah, and
that's because you're really good at this, and I think that's why you see it that way. I think that this. I also want to point out that I'm not putting this slide forward as the way that I think that empathy should be, or it's just that this, this ends up showing up a lot in the psychological literature, that even when we talk about others, like in I think I may have mentioned this, so I'm sorry this is redundant, but when we talk about the other, even in like social psychology textbooks, you won't ever find a chapter called other or other people or anything like that. It's all about the self, even in social psychology. So it's all about how other people affect me, or even the implied presence of other people. So if I'm thinking about other people, how does it affect me? And so when we're very egocentric in our empathy, then we end up with this problem of thinking that empathy is inside me, and if it's if I, if I get really, really good at it, some people might say, let's shift. And it becomes, I should diminish myself and inflate the other person like you were saying. It shouldn't be that either. I don't think that that this is a healthy model, and I don't think that, if I don't have a slide of this, but there are people who see it as the self small and the other is, right, huge.
It's like you're giving up yourself and you're doing everything for the other person. So it's better this self sacrifice that you're doing for the other they see that,
which is that's very problematic. Yeah, that's not healthy long term. It's, I don't even know if I would call it empathy. I would call it not having a clear sense of self, which I think is an important part of this
discussion. I don't know what's that called. Do we just kind of give up self sacrifice or something? Yeah,
in psychology, they call it unmitigated communion, which I really like that term, because communion, I see that as a very positive word. But when it's unmitigated communion, it's just giving and giving and giving and giving. And the way that they study it is really more in terms of actions, of compassion, and so nobody's really looking at it from the the perspective of empathy right now, but that's, I mean, that's something I would like to dig more into, is like unmitigated empathy.
Well, my I don't know if I told you this story, but my sister in law has is bipolar. The. She went into a sort of a manic phase, and so I said, Well, I'm willing to just listen to you, you know, because you're needing support. So it's kind of like emergency empathy, right? So like a therapist is giving emergency empathy to someone who is in distress. They they need kind of focused empathy just on themselves. And I listened to her for like, two and a half hours, just active listening, and she went through a whole roller coaster of feelings. Part of it was, like, totally attacking, criticizing me, but I just reflected it back. You think I'm an asshole. And then at the end of it, I said, Okay, well, that was now, will you listen to me, you know, for the mutuality? And she said, No, I'm not going to listen to you. And I said, well, then our relationship is over, and now our relationship is basically over, except, unless she we do an empathy circle. Because the empathy circle I'm saying that I don't want a relationship where I'm just, like, listening to you all the time, yeah, and it's got to be mutual. So we've held two empathy circles, you know, recently, and so she it's been okay, you know, she's kind of in a better state than she was. She was in, I think she'd gotten off her meds and stuff like that. And you get in they, you know, you get into just a kind of a growing manic phase, so and so it was okay. It's like, I don't want to relate to her outside of an empathy circle, because I don't trust her, you know, so, but I do want to have an open door. I'm open to an empathic relationship, a mutually empathic relationship. So it's that empathic Space Between Us that's sort of based on mutuality and and I'm actually with the same thing with my brother, the way he kind of screwed me over with the empathy Center in Santa Barbara, kind of behind my back, kind of just, just got another group in there. Even while we're talking, we're meeting and I'm reporting on stuff we're doing, he knows, in behind, behind his mind, that he's going to get this other group that's a evangelical conservative group that's going to manage and and then just tells me, this is what we're doing, instead of like, you know, empathic and empathic relationship would have been, oh, this is something I'm thinking about. What do you think about this? You know, let's have a discussion so there's an openness and a transparency needed, though, in the same way I said, Okay, well, our relationship is over. I'm only willing to speak to you in an empathy circle, in a situation that's mutually empathic, because I don't need a relationship that's sort of like me self sacrificing and and, you know, but I'm willing to keep the door open for a mutually empathic relationship.
Yeah, that's such an interesting real world, couple of real world examples of of how, how negative that can be when it's one sided. I'm sorry to go through that. Yeah,
it's it was, it's life.
Yeah, that's crazy, yeah, and it's true. It is because, because we haven't been able to create a cultural shift to seeing empathy as something that happens between, let's see, I'm just gonna, I'm gonna hop ahead because I've only got about 10 minutes, 12 minutes. So this is, this is the graphic that I speaks to what you and I are both talking about. Right where it's, it's, it's a problem when it's unidirectional. I quoted you here, but it's, it's not a problem with empathy, but a lack of empathy from the other person. So when people complain about it, that's when that's what they're complaining about. So I want to talk a little bit about these philosophers. Are you familiar with Buber in this? Yeah. So I would love to have a discussion about like, because I'm kind of new to the philosophy side of this, and so I would love to understand more of what you know about how we can apply what they've said to our understanding of empathy. So this is kind of in response to that, the fact that psychology is very self focused and really diminishes the other. And so if we bring these philosophers into the conversation, we see that humans are more than just objects among other objects, right? Like, there's, there's a sentience, there's there's something different about humans, and we have to recognize that art is art. And so I'm feeling is we can't directly apply that philosophy to empathy, right? Like we have to, we have to understand that humans have their, their i. Uh, basically infinite and unknowable. That's something that Levinas would Yeah, ungraspable and infinite is the terminology that he uses for us. So there's because the human potential is limitless. And so if we put people into a box of this is how you feel, and we're telling them, or we're even thinking that without saying it out loud, then we're putting them into a finite box. But Levinas would tell us that that is just it's a completely flawed way of looking at it. And boss here, he says that people are more than just our subjective representations of them, and I especially like Buber bringing up the the other to the level of like a sanctified relationship. I thou, I it, and so it's it's really just trying to debunk all of this idea that it's all about empathy. Happens inside me and I am everything, and the other is just a piece of artwork, right? So what are your thoughts on that? On on their philosophies? Yeah,
with I thought that, you know, Rogers and Buber had a conversation, recorded conversation. I think there's actually a book transcript of it, and one part that I found of interest is, he said, You're never going to come to an i thou relationship in therapy, because the therapist, there's a therapist client relationship, which is a different there's a, you know, it's not an equal relationship. And that's a bit what, you know, what I'm seeing, and the empathy circle is an equal relationship, right? You're it's not so it is more capable of an i thou. You know mutually empathic. You know deeper connection, equal relationship. So that that's one thought. There the object. I think your friend, who he had in the group here, he was interested in that the object and right? It wasn't your friend, the guy he had like he was interested in the relationship versus, I mean, more seeing the humanity of people or so, versus
join us. I've had Lee join us a couple of weeks ago.
Yeah, there's somebody before that can't even think
of who that was. Apparently I'd compartmentalized my memory to not include that
anyway, just the object I would like, I'm not clear on the object. Seeing people as objects, per se, like, in an empathy circle, what would that? What would that look like or feel like, you know? Um,
so I think that would be going back to what you're saying, like, rather than being present with the person and like, trying to see how they're feeling about it, really listening to what they're saying. You shut them down and you're not listening, and you label and you say you are a bad person. So that kind of just that makes them an object, because that doesn't give them the opportunity to choose for themselves if they are a good person, if you have already determined that for them, obviously, if you were to take a step back and really look at it philosophically, you know that they are the subject of their like they're the the author of their own story. Like we know that. But then when it comes to interpersonal like conflict, we tend to shut that off, and we tend to not give people the opportunity to be the the hero in their own story.
Go ahead, is that, like if we have a liberal and a conservative or a Democrat Republican come into the into the empathy circle and the the liberal sees the conservative as just this racist, you know, all these stereotypes. They see the stereotypes and vice versa. It's a lived hard and they're just, you know, woke. And so they both see each other as just all these stereotypes, versus sort of taking the time to sense into the into each other's experience and see the deeper, you know, underlying feelings and needs and humanity of each other. So that's one sort of surface level where it's just based on judgments. Does the other, which is, what can this person do for me? How can they help me or not? And if they can't help me, move myself, you know, get more power, or whatever, more money forward, then I don't need to relate to them. So I'm, I'm a little the object part is, I'm still trying to nail it down to the point where I can really feel the it within the context of an empathy circle. Yeah, I
see what you're saying there. Um. Um, I guess a context that it makes more sense to me. I was just talking with my research team last week about this, because we're doing work on sports, like character development in sports, and if we were to look at the other person as an object within the sporting context, it would be this person is my opponent. So you know, they're on the other team, and they are either going to facilitate my ability to aggrandize myself, because I'm going to win this game at their expense, or they're going to stand in my way of reaching my goals. And so I would see it as like a big boulder, you know, in the past. Thank you. So they again with either of those approaches to it, they either facilitate my self aggrandizement because I can use them, or they're standing in my way. And so that that objectifies the other person. And so anytime with any relationship, we can use people, or we can work with people, viewing them as as having the same level of humanity as we have, and in recognizing that they are ungraspable. We'll never fully understand them, because they are too amazing for us to fully understand. Well,
everyone changes from moment to moment, right? Yeah, that's
where this ungraspable mess comes in, right? Like, there's we. We really can't even really know what to expect. We can and that, I mean, the the whole field of psychology is trying to make predictions, right? We're trying to understand patterns so that we can predict what's going to happen in the future, but then we fall into the trap of stereotyping people. I mean, even with that, the political research I've been doing recently, there's a political profile. And I know I've mentioned this to you, a political profile of a conservative person, and I look at that and I say, I don't want to have anything to do with that kind of person. But if I take a step back from the research and look at the people that I know who who self define as conservative. I love those people because I have a relationship with them. So it really is. I think a lot of psychological research can tend to do that as well, where we objectify people and turn them into just a series of numbers, which is really not helpful for our full understanding of the human experience anyway, so just to I'm gonna try and get through to the end of this before we have to hop off, just so we can have, like, the full picture of what the presentation says in the next week, we can have more discussion about it. Is that okay? Okay, so I talked about you guys and your work here, where we're bringing people across this political and personal divide. And actually, at the end of this presentation I did, I tell you this, that I actually facilitated an empathy circle
with the group. Oh, when was that? This was,
like a month and a half ago sometime. Oh, nice. Like early February. I think it was, and people really appreciated it. It was a little clunky at first. And I know you've talked about this, that it's once you get into the rhythm of it, it feels a lot more like you can, you know your place, and, you know, interact in the empathy circle. And so once we got past that first couple of rounds through, people really enjoyed it. And then I've shared this with you as well. My analogy of lifting off, right? Going on a hot air balloon ride, you have to communicate back with your ground crew, and then you have to make sure that you ground yourself as well. And sometimes that requires help, like they have these people actually helping pull the balloon back down to the ground. And so I think that that's an important part of the empathy process and understanding your own sense of self, your own emotional experience, like in in relation to the other person's emotional experience. If we're looking at it from an emotional perspective, it can be okay, like we were feeling really, like, worked up during that encounter, but now that I'm I've stepped back from the encounter. How do I feel about this? And so then you can, like, have self empathy as well. I think is an important part of it, if we're looking at it from the perspective of, well, perspective taking grounding yourself means that you have, like, a little bit of reflection time where you think about what the other person has shared with you, like if they share something that really debunks something that you hold very close to you, like a conspiracy theory, for example, like a so if you, if you subscribe to you. Conspiracy theories, somebody shares some information with you that debunks that conspiracy that you really think is true and that theory that you think is true. If you were to be healthy in the way that you approach this empathy and perspective taking you would take the time to think through what they said and compare it with what you believe, and then maybe you would change. And if you feel like what they have shared is not true, or if it's not healthy information that they've shared with you, then you can choose to stick with what you believe as well. But I think that if you don't do this, that's where you end up in that unmitigated form of empathy or unmitigated communion, where you're giving and giving and giving and not taking care of your own needs. So my outstanding questions that I have, that I really want to I want to dig into this throughout my career, is if there's a higher level of empathy that allows the empathizer to maintain convictions to values. I know we've talked about that, and I'm also really interested in this. I I don't know if I'll be able to get to this during my PhD program, but maybe later. Is there a form of empathy that respects the perspective of the other person, but then also sees their potential? Because if you, let's say you're a parent, and you see where your child can be if, if you just get caught up in where they see how they see the world right now, you're not helping them to reach their potential. And so I don't know. I don't really see that coming up much in the empathy research right now, maybe
we can pick up on this slide next time like to go into little depth.
Yeah, because I would love to, I would love to hear your thoughts on that. And I
also put in a link. I don't if you know Peter see or just because you're talking about sports, he did something called empathic leadership in sports. Yeah, so I put the link in. Thank you. Yeah, I haven't seen since you were talking about sports. It just reminded me of his work on empathy. He has a book out
on empathic leadership lessons from elite sport. I don't know why I haven't encountered his work yet, because there's so much overlap with the work that we're doing, huh? Thank you.
Okay, well, good, then we shall reconvene next week and pick up on that slide and discuss, okay. Okay. Sounds good.
