Record. Okay, we're recording now. So I thought I would just give a little description for anyone watching this and you can add to it. So we're working on a call the call here is we're working on forming a team to create an empathy definitions typology. And there's a lot of confusion about you know, what Empathy means it's and we're looking at is creating a simple typology that's accessible to for everyone, basically easily accessible to create some more clarity. And we're going to use empathic listening an empathy circle approach to discuss it. So it's a bit of a meta approach are anything else by way of sharing by way of description of what we're doing?
I don't think so, just using the experiential approach in order to better kind of identify processes as they unfold in the course. And then sizing Yeah,
yeah. Okay, great. So you want to start or anything? Listen?
Sure. Um, so I, I guess my mind is kind of circling around the Batson interview that I watched this morning, as well as the chapter that I'm kind of reviewing, and the eight different types, and just the, the degree of nuance that he used and speaking about the very subtle differences between these different eight different types of empathy, and just how they are, in fact, different, except it requires really, kind of a deep consideration of how exactly they are because shifting from one form to the other may just be teeny like this, like a moment, like not even measurable. But it is, in fact, different. Like for instance, oh, yeah, that's my first thought.
Okay, so you're thinking about the Batson article. And that you're, I'm hearing, you're saying that the, the differences are very subtle, just a momentary subtle difference, and you're just sort of sort of sinking into letting that settle, maybe just thinking, thinking about that paper.
Yeah, and I think it I mean, that occurred to me, and then wanting to kind of spend, like a little bit more time with it, just because I do appreciate that the differences are very, you know, extremely subtle. And wanting to know, kind of, if there's ways to group these eight in a way that I don't know, like, adopting a posture matching the responses of another versus coming to feel as another feels like they are, in fact different, except a lot, some of them co occur, and other ones maybe kind of are experienced serially or one after the other.
So you're looking at some way of creating some different types of these victims to be organized. And there, they could be happening at the same time, or one happens after the other. So it's just not one happens. And that's it, but they're sort of mixed in together. Could be might be
or? Yeah, that's exactly I feel heard by that. And it's I'm sort of interested, I wonder if this maps onto what you're interested in in? Well, it from the empathizers, or, in my case, the therapist, awareness. So I might not be aware of adopting your posture, as I'm empathizing with you. But I might be aware of Suddenly, an influx of emotion that I know that isn't mine. So it's the types of things that I think would be helpful to say to a therapist in training that I'm kind of interested in putting into words, maybe not necessarily the scientific differences between each of these. So kind of methodologically kind of distilled, but more how do you teach someone that doesn't have the capacity to empathize in general to do so? How do you break it down for them?
Yeah, so one thing you're looking at how to break this down, kind of in a therapeutic context as a, as a teacher, how do you teach people so these different subtle differences and you know, break it down so they could they could grasp it? And then I think I was hearing some, like, what does that mean to I think was a term to take to come? I can't remember the word but there's a terminology that he uses that come to or is it I got to feel the faith? Yeah. Come to me to feel as another person feels. So what is sort of what does that mean? And how does that sort of happen?
Yeah, exactly. Um, so yeah, that's kind of what I've been thinking about lately. And, you know, I've had questions recently from people in training, just like, but how do I do it? You know, how do I do this? How do I work with someone that I can't quite relate to? You know, what are the mechanisms? Can you break it down? It's like. So that's why that's where my mind that at the moment, just with more questions than answers, I'd say,
Yes, you got a lot of questions more than answers. And you're thinking about how, you know, students are asking you how do I do this? How do I and you're feeling like you're looking for ways to be able to explain it to them that's accessible.
Yeah, feel fully heard. I think that's
completely I went again, to the subtle disease, subtleties, again. When love abuse it, there's it's not so cut and dry. And yeah, it's especially, I mean, there's just so much confusion with average person to make this sort of accessible and simple language, that that's why I feel there's a need for some kind of a typology as least general buckets for what we're talking about. And then some kind of a clear explanation for it, then there's a whole question of how do you teach other people? And how do you break each of these sections down to teach others?
Yeah. So I hear you reflecting on kind of the the complexity of evolve this and, you know, how do you first of all, break it down, preferably like in categories or buckets? You're saying, but it's kind of the secondary consideration is how do you teach it? If I heard that correctly? Yeah.
And I think that the confusion has huge ramifications. Because we're talking, I just find myself talking past so many different people, for example, the against empathy. You know, our thing is, I don't even consider what he's talking about is empathy. But yet, I mean, it's all over, you know, oh, this person's written this book, he's from Yale, this must have some significance, here's all the reasons empathy is terrible. And I'm saying, This isn't even empathy. And by my definition, you know, it's like, so it has this lag, this lack of clarity has a lot of, it creates a lot of confusion and a real hindrance, I think of, you know, constructive, forward movement.
So, sort of, you're reflecting on the fact that these methodological kind of the mess of it, the mess of empathy is problematic, because then you have people that are only speaking to maybe one side of the picture, kind of putting empathy down and creating a movement around that. And yet, for you that that what they had even started with calling empathy. This Dr. Bloom from from Yale, isn't your isn't what you would call empathy. It's more sort of more than that.
Are these subtle, the subtle differences make the world of difference in terms of real relating? Or is you know, as I'm sure as a clinical clinician, you know, listening to people, a little thing that you do just makes a huge difference, the difference between, you know, sort of identifying with someone say, oh, yeah, I've had that experience versus just reflecting back their experience, or saying, I feel sorry, if I'm sorry, for what your experiences or the identification Oh, that happened. Yeah. So there's all these little subtle things, that it's makes a huge impact and how to sort of and it's all out there, it's all sort of explained, but it's so difficult to under to explain to the average person like you know, what Batson is saying, he said, I sighs did a pretty good job of laying out a lot of it. It's one of the best foundational pieces I have to explain it to others make it easily accessible. It's a whole nother issue.
Yeah, um, so you're sort of reflecting which I think is an interesting point that like, there are these subtle differences, even though you know, I'm saying why these are really subtle differences. Very. It's hard not to in your mind, like, have one bleed onto the other But you're saying, but there are important differences. Because when it comes down to actually the practice of empathy, should you kind of err on one side or the other or say sympathize more than maybe, you know, use warmth and compassion, it creates a completely drastically different impact on the person. You didn't say it exactly that way. But that's what I'm kind of gathering makes a big difference. Yeah.
Yeah, it's like it, for example, in the empathy circle, which is what we want to, we're using empathic listening, like in an empathy circle was just two of us. It's a difference of like, you reflecting back. I mean, I feel like oh, you know, Shannon's paying attention. She's, you know, concentrating what I'm saying, I feel a sense of connection. You know, and, and somebody can get really upset about something. And you try to say, oh, no, that's not what it was. Right? If I tried to explain, instead of saying, oh, here, you're really upset about this. Those two different approaches just make a world of difference if the person feels that you know, that you're just they're just being heard, versus trying to correct. You know, some misconception, for example. Yeah.
Right. And so you're reflecting that there's a certain experience that you have, when you know, you're being listened to, like, even on right now, maybe you feel a little bit like, okay, Shannon's concentrating, that's great, but that there are certain instances where someone might get emotionally upset or aroused in any sort of way. And the person might try to reflect that, and then it can get even more messy or
will try to explain, like, oh, they might try to explain something that happened, instead of just reflect back the upsetness that the person had, that's what I've always found is just reflecting back, oh, you're really upset. You really, you know, instead of saying, well, that's not what I was saying. I was saying this. You know, I mean, it's there's something about there's a subtle, that's not what I was saying, but it makes a big world of difference. There's suddenly there's some tension in the Congress in the in the energy, you know, so versus just reflecting back with the person has said, yeah, yeah.
So you're sort of clarifying that the listener can try to actually explain, oh, maybe explain away, you know, what just happened. And that creates a world of difference and adds tension into the interaction where there hadn't been before?
Yeah. So I would be curious to what you think about the framework that Bateson sets up using from all the things I've read is kind of one of the most foundational is I guess, it's a bit of a typology itself. And, and he references gives a lot of heat. He's kind of creating these eight concepts and putting other academics their work within this framework trying to create some sort of a typology. So I am curious what you think of his his approach?
Yeah. So I hear your curiosity, your curiosity about kind of what I think about that since topology, you're kind of thinking and feeling as though he does a really nice job kind of citing the relevant literature and backing up each of these eight concepts.
Yeah, yeah, I feel fully heard.
Yeah, um, well, I'm sort of, I'm thinking a bit about what you said, with kind of explaining versus just reflecting back. And, you know, I'm wondering about because there's certain moments where someone might reflect back exactly my words. And I'll think, I'm glad that they did that, because I don't think I could have tolerated anything else. Like, I don't want people to be overanalyzing me in this moment. But sometimes, like, people will reflect back using different words. And I will feel immensely hurt by that. I'll feel like oh, that captures it even more than what I was aware of. And so I'm just kind of, I'm interested in that, you know, because there's almost no one right way. It's like this intuitive thing, of which way to go about it. But it's something I've wondered about.
So you're seeing the feeling of being heard and understood. So it sounds like sort of a felt experience that someone can give so word for word reflection, you say, Yeah, I feel you feel that sense of being understood, but they could also use completely different words and you feel heard by that. So you're having some curiosity about about that dynamic, what is what does that sort of mean? Or what's Yeah,
exactly. Yeah, and I think when people use slightly different words, it kind of takes my thinking further, in a way it makes my imagination come to life a little bit more, you know, maybe that's more helpful. When I'm not, you know, when somebody is like, emotionally upset or something, I think it can help to have their exact words given back or more of a holding space. Whereas, you know, in a context like this, where, where the goal is to think about something, it's kind of nice to hear different words back and to kind of let your imagination go, okay. There, there are those other associations too, that's a slightly different way of even looking at what I was just saying type thing.
So there's different contexts for kind of being heard that maybe if you're like, really upset, just hearing that word for word reflection feels good, but what we're kind of exploring concepts, a little bit of a different sort of reflection kind of helps with the creative creativity, you're moving your ideas forward. So sounds like you're also kind of sitting with the question of, how does that work? Why, you know, why is that working like that? And when, when to do what? And so the nuances of that?
Yeah, I think so. And I think that's why it makes sense what you were saying that when someone's when someone does get upset, and the other person tries to explain that's like the worst time to to disconnect or try to intellectualize you know, what might be going on?
If you're resonating with that, trying to explain something when someone's upset.
Yeah, and, um, I think I have, like, a lot of respect for Benson's work and how much he's gone about, delineating all these separate but closely related states of empathy. My mind naturally groups them into more cognitive versus more effective. For whatever reason, I think. I think I, personally feel that I'm in an extremely different state of mind when I'm more effectively resonating with what someone's saying, versus when I'm imagining trying to take their perspective or put myself in their shoes in some sort of a conscious and active way, if that makes sense.
So you find there's sort of a different or that we what resonates with you is the cognitive and emotional sort of model that you feel like there's a different state a different feeling in the two different states for you. And so that's kind of how you like to maybe start as a as a as a grouping or a bucket, maybe.
Big bins. Yeah, big bands.
Cognitive and big bucket. Emotional.
Yeah. But by the same token, I have a lot of respect for the careful Crenna experiments and everything that have gone into parsing out in a more detailed way, the different forms of reacting to another another person, and which ones with Batson, I really like the focus on which ones lead to the most, which ones are more most likely to lead to helping behavior? Because I think that's otherwise. I mean, that's a separate question. But like, that's what makes empathy interest of interest to me too, is that is the connection to helping behavior.
So you have a lot of appreciation for so that nuanced, understanding that Batson is creating and real appreciation for the direction towards helping behavior, how that works. And since it resonates, it resonates with you. It's like, why bother doing all this? It's not leading to some kind of helping Earth construction, constructive steps.
That's how I feel and that's maybe the part of me that empathizes a bit with blooms book against empathy. Because if so, I guess that's it. That's a question that remains for me. It's like that's, that's the part of empathy that's compelling to me. Maybe it does encompass more than just that, which leads to helping behavior but sort of that side of it feels incomplete and less interesting, at least for me. So
yeah, so just empathy. for empathy sake feels incomplete. And let's, let's do something is going to help people contribute to their well being.
So I feel very heard. Complete thought for now. Yeah,
yeah. So yeah, that there's I had put down on our page there, Dan Goleman. He's one to sort of popularize cognitive empathy, emotional empathy and empathic concern. So that's sort of become it's kind of out there bunch. Web, so I don't like it. I don't like the framing. I think it's confusing. So.
So your your power reflecting that. Dan? Daniel Goleman is one researcher and writer that talks about cognitive empathy, and kind of made that delineation that I had spoke to between cognitive and emotional empathy. But then there's also empathic concern that he talks about.
Yeah, he popularized it was with a discussion he had with the camera named he did the facial muscle emotions work. Paul Ekman, Paul Ekman, yeah. So he was actually in a conversation with Paul Ekman that they sort of it took, those concepts are out there. But they kind of took it. He got it from Paul Ekman, and he sort of popularized it, because through his emotional EQ, emotional intelligence work, so I think it's a more recent typology, you're a model.
So his idea of empathic concern came out of conversations with Paul Ekman, as maybe something to do with facial recognition. No,
it was I had actually interviewed Paul Ekman over to his apartment in San Francisco and interviewed him about empathy. And I remember he was saying, I looked into this, he talked to the Dalai Lama about compassion. He said, I got to look into empathy, because it's foundational to this compassion. He said, it's such a mess. It's a, you actually said, there's a recording of me with him, too. So. Yeah, so it was, I think so Vermeil he came up with and he had a discussion with Dan Goleman. And Dan Goleman, sort of popularized, it is kind of how I think is, you had talked about how these ideas kind of get out into society last time, this is the trail of how that and he was like, Oh, it's so confusing what people were talking about with empathy. So you kind of identified it as well.
So you're kind of clarifying that it was, it actually started with Paul Ekman 's idea. And it was kind of popularized through the emotional kind of intelligence quotient, that Daniel Goleman wrote about this idea of empathic concern,
and cognitive empathy and emotional empathy. So it's like the whole framework actually came there. So so the one problem I have with the cognitive approach, you know, cognitive empathy, okay. Um, I start with the is the first step the color Rogers, you know, sensing into it to the world of someone else. And I've never heard him use emotional or cognitive empathy. So those are like, others who have kind of come up with it. So you know, how to bridge the to. And I just want to say those are two different approaches, or at least starting points. It seems to me at least,
so are you saying you're feeling that Rogers never used those terms? And then he talks about the first step is feeling into another person's experience that's always made sense to you? And yeah, and so that's kind of part of why that dichotomy between cognitive and emotional, maybe doesn't resonate with you, right.
And the other is, I think that the term empathy came up as sort of a reaction to a very analytical kind of a worldview, you know, with I'm feeling with the German. So I was trying to trying to identify the felt experience that's happening when we look at artwork, and then it begins, was like, oh, yeah, we need to still be able to identify the felt experience that's happening, kind of when we talk to someone else, or when we relate to others or, you know, look at a work of art. So I think that feeling quality is sort of was sort of core to the whole concept.
Yeah. So you're comparing Rogers kind of feeling into step or feeling into somebody else's experience to this einfuhrung con concepts, which was originally used to refer to observing certain artwork even that we need a word for that. What does it mean to feel into some? Yeah, exactly important. Yeah.
And the other thing is, is the cognitive sort of implies that there's no feeling in cognition. And I think that cognition has a felt experience that there's a, you know, when you're very analytical and very cognitive, there's a certain feel there's a certain feeling to that experience. And it's sort of like said, it creates this, oh, there's a feeling and cognition, I think the two are sort of merged, that the cognition has a felt experience that when you're focusing cognitive, you know, concentrating on some thoughts, and also analyzing the thoughts. There's a very, you know, as a felt experience to that, too.
That's interesting. So you're saying that another reason why this dichotomy between cognitive and emotional doesn't make sense is because there's a felt experience to cognition itself. And that, that there's that should be captured.
Yeah, I did some interviews, and then also actually an empathy cafe on the topic of what does reason feel like, right, and it's like, it was very, there's so many different versions of reason. And they all have different felt experience, there's a reason, which is a competitive reason, you know, where you're trying to dominate, conceptually, someone, there's sort of an empathic reason where you're sort of sensing and seeing the relationships. And each of those has a different felt experience, as well as some people told me that they, they like reason, because it made them feel safe, that they felt confused as a kid. But when they started reasoning, they had a feeling of safety and control in their life. So So yeah, so
you're saying, oh, go ahead. Sorry.
No, no, that was a lot. That's just,
yeah, I'm gonna try to recap. So you had a circle on what does reason feel like some, this thing people usually don't think of as being able to attribute a feeling to but what does it feel like? And people came up with this idea that there's a competitive version of reason, and that that's how it feels. And then there's also this solution base version reasoning, I don't remember the exact more of an
empathic, like when you're when you're listening to someone, you're you're sensing into their experience, but there's a lot of relationships within that listening, that being done. And you could say, that is a form of reason. And
yeah, so you're you see, the other way people talk about how reason feels is that it's sort of a, like adjoining are an empath form. And that maybe all people found reason to feel safe. You know that that was a separate question. But that's another Association people had is that it associating with safety.
But there is this sense of reason, which is so that analytical, finding relationships, I guess, approach and that has feelings attached to it, like something's like I hate this, I hate this, you know, all this concentration that feels too painful. But other people I really like this, because it makes me feel safe. So reason isn't just this thing that's beyond felt experience. It is a felt experience in and of itself. It has a felt experience. And it's a variety of feelings, too.
Yeah. So you're sort of clarifying what you said. And you're saying, you know, some people really enjoy the activity of reasoning and other people it's like terrible to them, and
maybe would be
painful. But, regardless, Razia The key point is that reasoning is a felt experience in and of itself.
Yeah, so that's something I'm just throwing that in there. Because I, I just find this cognitive is sort of, it's creating this reason, emotion sort of dichotomy, and I don't think it's that easy, or even that you can't even separate it. So what I like with with Batson is concept five and six, he uses imagining, and I think imagining is what I would call imaginative empathy. You know, you can we talked about last time imagining yourself into any kind of a situation. I think that's what the prospective taking article that you pay for you talked about is kind of moving from cognitive to imagination as a as a bucket is a category
So you're pointing to like, actually two bets and concepts out of the eight, which talk about this imagination aspect, which is, well, you didn't say it, but it's neither cognitive or affective. Or maybe it's cognitive. But there's a, there's a definite feeling associated. Yeah,
it's all merged in together, you can almost really can't do one or the other. And, yeah, I think they're so intertwined. But yeah, so anyway, I feel heard with that, that was quite a lot. So.
Yeah, but it was, I mean, really kind of interesting. Because before you've pointed to concept five, and six, I was thinking, well, imagining is our role, or what was the role playing? Those are the ones that are trickier to put in the big bins of emotion and cognition. I think, too, and yeah, I'm not sure. And yet, I think those, those are central in a way that I'm not entirely like that in reflecting on my own clinical practice and my own attempts to develop my own empathy, I don't focus as much on imagination, or, or role playing, because, um, but it's definitely there. It's sort of my mind's constantly making associations based on what the other person saying. And so that has to be imagination, or it's a cognitive activity, but I sort of allow, not strictly because I like allow my mind to wander based on the emotional experience, I'm having also,
to looking at that imaginative aspect that when you're doing clinical, when you're listening in a therapeutic, it's not like you're starting to go off and imagine yourself in all kinds of situations, you're kind of being there present with the person, but there is some sort of imagination, or associations that are happening as you're listening is that
yes, yeah, in fact, a common experience of people, especially psychoanalysts, who tend to work with free association, and a common experience that, you know, we'll share in supervision groups or peer supervision is like, I started having this Daydream when I was working with this person all of a sudden, and inevitably, like 10 times out of 10, like, the person will share the Daydream while sharing also what the patient or the person is talking about. And they're related in a very deep way. It's like I'm having this come to mind for like, a very good reason, actually, that's related to, and that could be used if I navigate the situation properly, to really bring the patient forward from where they are. So so even though they might feel totally random. It's not. And it's like the so it's, it's uncanny when it happened. Yeah.
Yeah. So in the psychotherapeutic context, when you're listening to someone, something that they say, it kind of triggers some thoughts that come up with you. And then when you when you share, you share maybe your thoughts about what they're saying, but you share also the thoughts that were triggered in you that came up just spontaneously? And I think most of the time it has, it's totally relevant to the context of what you're talking about. It sounds like it even sort of contributes, it really contributes to the first speaker who's speaking to, to their understanding in some way.
Well, that's the weird thing is that it's not always, I think it always can help in some way, but not always from sharing the the exact thought content or anything like that. But there's always something in the daydream or the thought or the association that I had that I that will be useful in my thinking about and then working with patients, or will inform me about part of their situation that I wasn't seeing before, type of thing. But the
next Yeah, it's not so much you tell them that, but that what you're what came up for you actually informs what your next step will be. Ancient forms your process and your thinking about what to do.
Exactly. Yeah. And so much so at times that therapist might say something to the patient in response to what they've said. And to a third party, it wouldn't look like active look like the furthest thing from active listening. And yet the patient goes, Yeah, and it's like, for two and outside It would look like who just came into the interaction, it would look like what the therapist said had zero to do with what the patient was saying. And yet it got at something very emotionally core to what the patient was going through and needing to be heard about.
Yes, so really that that insight that happened, or that story is right, right spot on quite, you know, quite often sounds like, even though from someone else just watching it, they wouldn't have that they wouldn't see the relationship. But yet for the, for the patient, there's a real connection real really helps them in some way. Um
so I don't know what relevance of this has, but it also popped that, you know, speaking, speaking of this, it kind of something popped into my mind that working with the with one's imagination tends to feel less safe. Like, well, I feel like I'm kind of going out on a limb, if I'm just, you know, kind of trusting my intuition to that extent that. So, for whatever that's worth. Yeah, I think it's safer to feel like everything one's doing in the course of empathizing is within their conscious control. And yet, there's this part, that's the imagined, if you're using your imagination, you open yourself up to so much more than just thinking or feeling like, you know, all this your life's lifetime worth of experiences and associations you're suddenly working with. So,
yes, is just listening to someone. But when you open up your imagination, it's like, your whole life kind of comes to the forefront this can be feels like it can be kind of risky, is you don't know where things are gonna go? Or what's going to come up and what it all means, or, yeah.
That's my thoughts on it. I mean, whether it's like it's the felt experience of it, of trying these different forms of empathy on you know, whether it's true or not, whether it is actually more risky, it is how it sometimes feels in the moment, that you're kind of taking a bit more of a leap when you go into the imagination or intuition. Yeah,
yeah. Intuition, and imagination just feels more risky somehow.
Yeah. So I think that's my complete thought. And I feel heard Yeah.
Yeah, when I, when I do the listening, I within like, in an empathy circle, I just reflect back, you know, what I'm saying. So I don't really do like an imaginative empathy, I would say, what I would consider imagines, like a real clear focus. You know, when I, when I'm listening to you, there's all kinds of stuff, right happening in my mind, there's associations, and I'm trying to hold what I want to talk about, you know, to the side, what concepts are going to say to you, you know, I got to make a note of that, and then I forget it. There's all kinds of stuff kind of happening that, and, yeah, so but I do try to just, you know, the primarily, just stay present, and listen, and be able to clearly understand what the speaker is saying.
So you're saying, like, the type of listening, active listening you do in empathy circles is about just being trying to be as clear, reflect back as clearly as possible, what the other person saying, and there might be associations, but oftentimes, if well, it's notes to yourself, or reminders or things like that, but things that you're trying to kind of quiet while you try to reflect. Really, yeah.
And so there's that dynamic. And then, then sometimes I can make a clear shift to imaginative empathy, which is that we could do role playing or and I think I might have mentioned this, that in one empathy circle, one of the participants was having a problem with their, their creativity, they would think of an idea, but then they would judge it right away. And that caused pain, right? So there, it's like, I don't even want to have any creative ideas because I'm going to judge it and it's going to cause me pain. So we did a roleplay where I acted out her crazy tivity somebody else role played the judgment. And she sat back and, and creativity and judgment had an empathic discussion. So we're, we're imagining, or I was imagining being her judgment, or creativity. And then I was also empathically, listening to her through her judgment or whatever you're saying. So we're kind of doing both levels of the empathic listening being present, but, but those components sort of listening to each other. So that's where I have a clear differentiation between those two, that yet there, the role playing is a clear deaf differentiation from just listening. And then adding another layer on top of it, as the empathic listening was sort of merging the two. Yeah. I don't know if it's getting too confusing.
Well, hopefully, I get it. Maybe you can add on if I don't get all of it. But you were saying that in the course of active listening, and trying to reflect back as clearly, sometimes your way of being can take off into more of an imaginative state of mind, I think, is what you're getting to. And then you called upon this experience that you had working with someone in empathy circle, and you sort of worked with two aspects of her mind that she was struggling to be creative, because would often feel judged by herself in the process of doing so. And so using your imagination to roleplay creativity and judgment sort of allowed you to empathize with her in a probably a deeper way than you could have with any other Yeah.
And she went on for like 40 minutes or something, or 45 minutes. And at the end, she was like, wow, this is great. You said, it helped her inner dialogue with those two components of herself, to kind of come to some deeper understanding, and maybe even work through the conflict or judgment and creativity we're having internally.
So she just kind of was really kind of thought it was really great to watch both sides of her mind, like, kind of have that empathic dialogue. And it sounds like it did a lot for her.
And then another place where I have a clear distinction is with conflict mediation, so we do the restorative empathy circles, someone has, let's say, a conflict with their father. And then the father doesn't want to take part in the dialogue, for example, but then we have people in the circle, one person will roleplay the father he say, while the father is very quiet, but domineering give a few little, you know, context. And then this one person in the circle will take on that role. And it's like, amazing how powerful that can be, you know, that, that so anyway, that is sort of role playing, and but they use empathic listening to dialogue with each other. But they're, the person is playing the role of this person's father that they're having problems with.
So you're using another example of when this happen, simply just takes telling another person a little, like, a few adjectives about the Father, and it's amazing how well it works, that I guess the other person then can engage in such a productive dialogue, if they're doing so empathically. I might have missed some of the,
that's yes, essence of it. So those are some clear distinctions between just listening being present and then role playing, taking on a clear role. And, you know, I think of Meryl Streep, who said, would take on the role of the father and like, totally embody the energy, you know, even a really deep sense of the role playing. So, so that that's like a whole nother, like, even deeper level of that.
Yeah. Yeah, you're thinking of Meryl Streep kind of taking on the role of the father and like, you know, sort of a deeper level of what you're saying the ability to really act as though you were another person, just down to the small mannerisms and gestures. Yeah,
yeah. So for my overall own clarity, understanding of empathy. I do see this this Rogers, what he sort of pioneered was just the listening, being present. Sticking with the where the person is giving them that attention, and it's basically sensing into the experience of that person, the other person is sort of a foundational aspect of have sort of a first step sort of empathy.
So you're kind of saying how you conceptualize it is that sort of listen, actively listen, be present, just like Roger said, and in the course of that you feel into the other person, if I heard you, right, yeah.
And so at least for me, that's sort of the starting point. And it in terms of practicality, it seems to have the most practical application, like your work is pretty much about that. And that's what you'd said about like, helping behavior. I do think that, that they that way that doing that isn't in is in and of itself, highly healing, right. It's like, just that sense of presence, that sense of listening, without even having helping, you know, other helping behavior that that is immensely helping in healing on its own. So,
yeah. So you're saying it's the most practical way to break it down? And by actively listening and feeling into another person's experience? That that is like, kind of a very healing thing to receive? And that is, what that does. Your saying is probably the the combination that leads to helping behavior or is most likely,
well, in itself is helping behavior, you don't even need to go too much farther, because a lot of the times just that listening to people solve their own problems, right. It's just that listening, that sense of presence from someone else. And that sense of connection, it's like the problems just sort of emerge into their consciousness, and those have the most highest energy for actually, you know, making change in their life.
I'm not sure I got that last part of what you're saying. But I think you're what you are saying is that you're clarifying that. It doesn't, it's not that it's most likely to lead to helping behavior it is helping Yeah, actively listen and feel yourself into. Yeah,
because I have a little concern of a Daniel Goleman approach, like, oh, there's empathic concern. He has cognitive empathy, emotional empathy, empathic concern, and empathic concern is like, Oh, you see the person's pain, you try to help them. Right? Which kind of means that oh, you go give, you know, the person some money, you do something else, right. There's something else out there and they never say what else it is. And they never do it themselves like that. The one that the academics always all you give to Oxfam, like Oxfam is always the, the helping behavior out there. It's got so anyway, kind of just ribbing that is that they don't and they'll say they don't see that the empathy is highly healing and helping in and of itself. So I just kind of have I just guess I kind of object to that. So.
Okay, I hear you. So you're reflecting back on Daniel Goleman, Coleman's Yeah, Goldman's you know, dichotomy between cognitive and emotional empathy on one hand, but also this emphasis on empathic concern? Primarily, because it almost suggests that that empathy itself isn't the health isn't the thing that's helping the other person they there there has to be this other thing that right, Pathak action that must be taken, like separate from them. Yeah, that's
where the compassion community says, Well, you got to have compassionate compassion, that's, that's the solution. So sort of a marketing thing. But the problem with that is a lot of time what's called compassion, or the empathic concern is sympathy. And it's like, Oh, I feel that person's pain, I need to do something. So you're trying to solve your own pain, and then do something which doesn't necessarily address the, the problem that the person has, because you're just trying to get rid of your own pain that you felt with the with the other person. So from the other person, so it has that whole sympathetic, like, we're in the developing world, we're gonna go build dams, you know, and in the for third world countries, and it's like you'd like that. But it's like, do they really need it? Is it what they want? You know, and what are the ramifications is going to have on the culture and stuff?
Right? Yeah. So this is part of why the compassion community has stressed compassion so much, because they say, Well, this is what actually leads to helping is the compassion empathy, not so much that you know, then you're reflecting on definitions of empathy that are more about relieving your own pain, rather than that are more about relieving your own pain and how those, you know, going off of those types of items. empathy can cause you to really miss the mark, sort of do things to relieve your own discomfort without really actually meeting the needs of the person directly.
And that's where the empathy circle this mutual empathy is, is that it's like, oh, there's this problem with this help, and then you it becomes a mutually empathic dialogue. So you're both listening. So I kind of see that as the solution. So oh, you know, for person, may they need some emergency assistance is one thing other house just burned down. But there's also sort of a negotiated empathic negotiation about what do we do? The person who's, they're not being helped? In the sense of a patronizing help, it's like a, it's a mutual, we're in a dialogue, an empathic dialogue to so problem solve.
Yeah. So alright, so going, we're just reviewing your trauma, compassion, and this form of personal distress, empathy that misses the mark, and you're saying the empathy circle is one way to create a, a way for mutual empathy to take place where it's not this emergency type of empathy that can come off as like patronizing or, like asymmetrical in terms of power dynamics, but it's actually a place where people can engage in a real kind of connection. That's that's different in some way.
Yeah. Felt very hurt. Thanks.
Yeah. Well, I guess I'm back in the knot of realizing how comfortable how complicated this always been, but
what things kind of caught my, my ear with with what you were saying?
I'm hearing there. So you're kind of coming into the not of the complication of it seems like it is complicated. Yeah. And then just kind of thinking about where you're gonna go from here.
Yeah, I think it kind of hit me. That's for sure how complicated it is. And I think I was I was kind of had some thoughts as you were talking earlier. And then when you said, emergency empathy, it kind of reminded me of a few conversations we've had recently about the difference between therapeutic empathy which might be different or less mutual and mutual empathy that occurs in an empathy circle. And it's kind of playing around with that,
to think about server emergency empathy, and mutual empathy and the differences and just thinking about that,
right, and how to resolve this. And I was also feeling like, and this is part of what I've observed from other people doing empathy circles is that when, when I was listening, and you were speaking and elaborating on different ideas, I was noticing, I wasn't feeling uncommon discomfort or pain, like in personal distress, empathy, but I was becoming more a little bit more tense I was as I was listening, because I was wanting to get all the capture all the information and to concentrate and my ability to concentrate kind of, or my ability to hold it all decreased, as my tension increased. And so regardless of whether or not we're in personal distress, empathy, there is a relief associated with reflecting back, because you're sort of giving that back, you know, releasing the tension on having taken in information.
Yeah, so when you're listening, you're noticing that there's is there's more said, there's a level of stress that goes up to sort of integrate, take in what's being said, but then you find that when you do the reflection of it, it helps to relieve the stress of, and you're just noticing that in yourself,
right? And so that but that doesn't make what we're doing, like selfish, you know, just because there's a release of tension associated with it. This it sort of reminds me of this, this whole conversation of like, is, you know, like, are you know, can we truly be altruistic? Can we truly be empathic? And maybe, yeah, I think what caused me to feel like well, this is a mess is the knowledge that so much is going on at one time, and empathy isn't purely one thing or the other, that there's a lot going on. And it's not easy. And yeah, there's all sorts of different things happening, I think in the mind through the process.
Yes, there's a sense that oh, this is I can see why this is a mess, because there's so many different things happening at the same time. No wonder it's a mess with trying to gray the definition. There's so much going on. How do you create some clarity in this mess? It's not It's very complicated.
Yeah, exactly. And I don't know, there's like the purely mechanical part of it, which maybe is why Daniel Goleman spiced it up in the way that that he did between cognitive and emotional empathy. And then there's the, the under I mean, I could have cognitive emotional empathy and not really care about the outcome, like I could understand and feel for somebody. I don't know that I could actually could do this. But conceivably, hypothetically, someone could cognitively and emotionally understand someone, but not really care if how things end up going. I'm just trying that on for size. Like, is that true? I think there's no reason me I guess for some people, it might that that could be true.
Yeah, so you're just sort of exploring, trying on if someone is able to cognitively and emotionally empathize with someone, there could be doesn't necessarily mean that there's a feeling of care for that person. Yeah.
Um and, I mean, I've heard that said, like, I've heard Kohut write about that, that like, like in war, there's a certain amount of empathy that a perpetrator has to have for its victims to know what's truly going to be the epitome of terrorizing to those people. So there's like, cruelty, you know, empathy can result in great cruelty. If we take that definition, but I like you, I can't really conceive of fully being able to understand someone emotionally and cognitively and not wanting the best for that person, you know. So, that's,
yeah, so you're just thinking of the, the thing cohort was cohort was talking about? I think, so like the, the torture has to have empathy for the person that they're torturing. Right, they got to have to be able to do a good job of torturing, they just means that they're not going to care for that person. And so you're kind of just sitting with that. I think it was a little bit more to it. But you're sort of sitting with that. That aspect, if you're really empathizing with someone, there would be some kind of a care there. Yeah, it's,
it's hard to, it's hard to imagine. Yeah. I guess it really just depends on a lot of other factors as probably too much to get into. But I know that that, that he had noted that in one of his speeches. And so just kind of playing around with that idea is empathy have to be well intentioned? Or can it be actually used in a really kind of malicious type of way for malicious ends? Or?
Yeah, so it can be used for use for malicious ends? Is it always or positive well being? And yeah, so since cohorted, just mentioned it and you're just sort of thinking about it and kind of sitting with the question.
Yeah. And there was one last thought there, I'm trying to recall, um, well, if it can, if if it can, in fact, be used for malicious like purposes, then I do think that having an additional component like empathic concern is is a required, because otherwise, you Yeah, you would need something additional like that to represent that aspect.
So you need something like empathic concern to have the that it's not a malicious empathy that it has a constructive direction. So You need sort of that concept along with it?
Yeah, I feel hurt.
Okay. Yeah, I've I've talked about this, you know, the, it's one always kind of the torture has empathy. And there's the thing is, is I think there's a differentiation between having empathy and taking an action. So you can have empathy, but then the action you take is not empathy, right? So I guess I make a distinction between that the empathy would be a sensing into a torture, so fun listening to the torture Murray, and sort of sensing into what their experiences, but when they're doing the action of, you know, putting on the thumbnails a hotter boarding, that they're taking an action, then that is not they're not emphasizing at that point, user taking action. It's different, the action and the empathy are different.
Okay. So you're kind of going into this example. And like, you know, the if we have a torture listening to the victim, or whatever, that there may be empathy going on at that time, or sort of, there could be, but the action is a separate thing. So yeah, there could be empathy going on. But that differentiated from
Ivan kind of work, trying to work this through is a sort of like saying, you have you have, I want to say a heart, right, you have a heart. And it's not a heart in the metaphorical thing. It's just a physiological heart, that we could say a heart is pretty good, it has positive effect, right? That it's sort of like saying hearts or not, if you use that same logic with empathy in the torture thing, hearts are bad, because hearts can be used for torture. Right? Because it's, it's a, it's a quality, that you have that quality, and you can do some other thing that is not that is, you know, causing pain to someone else. But you can't blame the heart for that there's something else going on, there's some kind of a thought process or something that's causing that I think it's similar to them with empathy, that the empathy is is sort of like the heart that it has, it's constructive of its own because you can't survive without it. But it's different from when it when you're not doing empathy. Right. So I kind of differentiate, I think there's a there's a difference between the act that action that the torturers doing, and the the empathy.
Yeah. Yeah. So you're in you're sort of, hopefully I get this right. But you're sort of comparing this to kind of like a wall, let's say we're just gonna take like a heart or like human heart, like, just because some people have that heart and will do bad things doesn't meet doesn't make the heart bad inherently. Yeah, like, just because something can be used in a malicious way doesn't make that thing bad. Right? Empathy. Yeah,
it's like one of those balls of that, you know, you dropped the ball and hits the other ball hits the other ball, there's a whole chain of cause of impact. And there's other things happening between the impact, you know, that it's the final impact. So, I tried to define, for myself, I try to say that I do, I do think that empathy isn't a heron constructive, you know, quality. And that's why we need a culture of empathy. For, you know, the, because of that inherent positive, as you know, quality.
Yeah. So you're saying that empathy is inherently positive. That does not mean that all actions that follow from empathy are going to be inherently positive, because there's empathy, but there's also a series of billiard balls that then follow whether they be thoughts, feelings, personality, dispositions, etc.
And then the the other part is the, I think that gets the perspective, the singular perspective, because that is coming from a singular perspective, the torture and the torture re, is, you know, in the perspective taking, it's taking the perspective of the individual. And that is leaving out the perspective of the relationship, the empathic relationship so for me, our true empathic relationship would be the torture would say, I really want this information from you and I want to cause you pain to to get this I really need this and the listener portrayed that perspective it's a well I'm hearing that you really want to touch your muse you really want this information, and then they purchase a I feel heard that the torture would torture he would say, or the would be I really don't want Wouldn't it be hurt, I really don't want to hate. And they would keep negotiating until they came up to some kind of an agreement. You know. So there's so I think the whole notion of the individualistic viewpoint of empathy is that the world looks differently in the relational empathy. Right? So and the empathy circle. So that model of the relational empathy,
Oh, wow. Okay. So you're saying that this, I think you're saying that this is only a problem, if we look at it from at empathy from like, an end that one of the individual's perspective versus the other, but that you're making the point. And what the Center for building a culture of empathy is all is built around is that empathy also involves the relationship, the relational empathy. And so once we take that into consideration, there is something that emerges in the course of that mutual empathy and even a perpetrator and a victim kind of hearing each other out. That would make something like what I previously said impossible. Yeah,
exactly. We have to have some sort of agreement, you'd come to some mutual understanding and agreement going forward. And I do see that that's almost like you could say it's a bias, the individualistic view is a is a bias of the society to see the world from that individualistic view, because there are other viewpoints, relational, and it's like, which you choose. And it tends to be that our culture chooses this individualistic view, but it's not like reality, it's just one potential of many different views.
Yeah. Um, I don't think I'm going to get all of what you said. But you said that, you pointed out that that individualistic, individualistic way of looking at empathy is a definite bias in our society, and that we really went. But that's only one view, that's not necessarily reality, reflecting reality. And there's another way of looking at the world that's much more relational. And so we kind of come to a different place with this concept when we include that component.
Yeah. And that was the work that Judith Jordan was doing, and that they should, if you read her work, I think they were kind of heading in that direction. And the the theory behind it, as I understand it, was they're saying, you know, men have dominated therapy, you know, Freud, etc, etc. And men had an individual, very individualistic, were taught an individualistic viewpoint of the world. So they brought that individualistic viewpoint into therapy, whereas women, you know, had to take care of the household had to think of the well being or just these generalities. So they were thinking in terms of relationship for the family relationship had a perspective of that, and that we need a more that perspective. I mean, that's how I kind of interpreted it. And that they were trying to create sort of a new sort of therapy based on on relational awareness, versus kind of this individualistic, and it was sort of a reaction to the, you know, the male dominated or that, that individualistic viewpoint.
Yeah. So they, you're talking about Judas Jordan's idea of mutual empathy and framing it as a reaction to some of the dominant male dominated theories of the time that were more about the individual therapist and the individual patient? Perhaps because Judas Jordan embraced a more feminist kind of worldview based on the importance of relationships with family and etc. Like, yeah, kind of refuted that with her concept of her and others concept of mutual empathy.
Yeah, so as I understood it, the the criticism she has, like, women, were going to set male therapists who were saying to be a well developed person, you have to be individualistic, think about yourself, and all that the whole worldview are saying, Hey, this is not really is that really helping me, you know, so it kind of so again, it's just it's an illustration of the individualistic versus relational sense of empathy. And we can have both of those we can take different perspectives, but to leave one perspective out, I think, is not seeing that more as a whole whole totality of what's going on.
So you're just saying a little bit more about Judith Jordan that this her theory arose in reaction to women going to see male therapists and feeling kind of unfulfilled by their advice to be more independent cetera, autonomous like that it wasn't really helping them. And so yeah, that's I think you might have said a few.
Yeah, the other part was there's different that's the idea of perspective taking, we can take different perspectives. And we have that capacity. So I'm not saying hey, individualistic perspective is, you know, terrible or whatever, or that these are just different perspectives that we can take. So I want to give the relational perspective sort of equal weight within consciousness.
Yeah. So you're, you're saying right now like, it's not mutually exclusive, like this is there's, there's ways in which all these perspectives can be helpful. You don't have to cross out individualistic thinking just because the relational makes sense. We can be both and
type. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. So so weird. And maybe the other many more perspectives, too. But yeah, with that, I feel heard.
Yeah, but it could be even more perspectives than that. So, um, no, I feel very, I feel very, I guess, inspired at this point in the conversation. I think that makes a lot of sense to me. i And I like how, I don't know, I like how we spoke to kind of that issue. Uh huh. I can see more the justification for including in any kind of theory of empathy, or any kind of training model for empathy, I can now see more clearly, the addition of a relational empathy variable or, and I'm, I'm just playing with that concept right now.
You're feeling inspired about the relational empathy component makes make sense to you? And so you can see the you know, how it could fit into a model of empathy and the why of it and just sort of thinking about it, playing with it, seeing how it plans.
Yeah. Because something that you had said last time really struck me as well about relational empathy or something that we had come to in the conversation, that
that relational empathy seems to actually grow throughout the relationship. And I don't know, maybe that's true of cognitive and emotional empathy, too, but relation, but the amount of empathy that's experienced within the relationship does seem to grow quite a bit in the course of a treatment, for example. Yeah,
yeah, you'd brought that up last time to about that there is a relationship that you've seen in the therapeutic relationship, and that that relationship grows and develops and deepens over time.
Yeah. And that has to do with I think it's related to this imagination, this imagining empathy, because like, as time goes on, and the relationship deepens, I think part of the way that gets defined is that both participants feel more free to maybe like more, imagine what the other person's thinking not so much strictly just trying to stay with the moment by moment. emotion and cognition.
So the way that that relationship, relational empathy develops is that sort of just listening to the moment what's happening being present, that over time you develop, maybe some trust, some connection, and then they add imagination can sort of, maybe there's even trust for that imagination, to imaginative empathy to sort of come and that even strengthens the relationship more.
Yes. It probably has to do with working through, like ruptures together and knowing that, even if you didn't get it, 100%, right. You were forgiven by the other person, and you kind of have these blunders, but things turn out, okay. And that kind of keeps happening, you know, and maybe most of the time you do get it right. And so that builds trust.
So one of the things it's building trust is like, a rupture happens, like the connection isn't is ruptured in some way. But then it's repaired. And that constant doing that over and over again, builds deeper trust.
Yeah. So I'm sure that intersects with this idea of empathy, relational empathy somehow, but, you know, I don't know exactly what that might be at the moment. But
um, so I think I'm hearing you're trying to relate it to the therapists work you're doing therapeutically how to have these terms called concepts relate to the work that you're doing as a therapist.
Yeah. And what I hear you relating it to is sort of what I hear you saying is the empathy circle is a place is the place where relational empathy or mutual empathy is possible immediately, maybe in a way where it isn't immediately accessible in a more patient therapist relationship.
So you're thinking maybe I'm talking about relational empathy in the empathy circle that you start pretty more rapidly into the relational aspect of it. Yeah, wondering about that. Just wondering if that's what my what I'm trying to say or what I mean.
Yeah, just one. Yeah, I think that that is. So it's interesting, because I think that's a place where you work to get to in for therapists and patient. And yet, I think there's also value in starting at a place where, especially for patients that don't have someone that they can talk to at home, like to be able to talk to someone that's not involved in any of their life. And that's relatively objective, although nobody's really objective. It's like a relief to be able to talk to someone where there isn't that responsibility of mutually giving back to them in return. Yeah,
it's very helpful for people who just don't have that empathy in the, in their lives. And they don't have someone that would just listen to them, where they don't have to kind of give back, it's like, somewhere where they can just be heard. And you're seeing that as like the starting point, or like a starting point in the therapy that they have a place they can go to get that empathy.
Yeah, sort of what you're saying is the emergency maybe it starts out as emergency and then to it relational mutual.
Sally, you're still trying to work through that, that comment about the emergency empathy, and how that's kind of fitted. Here's how you maybe you're taken with that. Yeah, and we're
definitely working with that, that phrase. So I do I feel heard. For the moment, yeah.
Okay. Yeah, I would say that what I'm looking at is the cultural empathy, like, how do we have a culture that sort of based on empathy is, as a goal, you know, is sort of the vision. And so the pieces that build to that, so, you know, definitely therapy is something a piece of that, right? Is somebody getting empathy, where they didn't have it, they have issues, they have problems, and they just need somebody to listen to them. And there, you've got a trained, experienced person. So
okay, I hear you. It's interesting. So you're framing it, like, when you think of a culture of empathy, you think of the patient therapist relationship as being a piece of that culture. Where, you know, patient can get empathy, kind of if they hadn't been getting it in the culture at large. Oh, you're made.
What's missing from therapy, though, is the larger picture that we want to create a whole culture of empathy, right? It's I was using the metaphor, the analogy, like World War One, somehow always, the soldiers kind of beating each other, dying by the millions, and then the nurses and doctors come in to sort of patch him up. But the nurses and doctors don't have the vision of a healing culture, right, we got to totally change that we got to talk about the powers that be and bring them into this empathic healing culture. And so that's a little bit the, I guess, the issues I have with the therapy that it's, it's like, oh, we're gonna go patch up people fix them. I'm everybody's really great. It's great to fix them up. But there's a context that's not getting addressed. Why people are so damaged, you know, so,
yeah, you're saying like, just like, not like nurses, Emergency Nurses in a war zone or something like that, like, therapists can become a little bit myopic, I guess, about just treating the person that's right in front of them without taking into account, like the overall context of where they're, the patient is operating and how an empathic might that might actually be.
Yeah. And it seems if therapy was like, well, we're gonna teach you how to do empathy. We're gonna, we're gonna listen to you and you're going to receive it, you're going to feel how good it feels to be heard. Now, listen to others, but also create empathy circles. And also let's get the politicians to put some money into training all the students, you know, to really make a culture sort of based on this. So it's kind of seeing that sort of Bigger cultural shift that needs to happen.
Yeah. So you're as you're saying, you're imagining a world where therapists would work with patients, not only to kind of bandage whatever they came in with, but also to encourage them to kind of spread this empathic action out into the world. And, you know, even normalize the idea that this could be happening in schools with politicians, and kind of that therapist join in this drive in this movement to create a culture, a whole culture.
Yeah, that they would go in mass to be see in front of the, you know, the Congress and demand that the Congress do. You know, I mean, it's like, we know, this works, it's time that you kind of model this, you know, so, but instead, I hear a lot of a therapist is I gotta get clients and I got to market myself and all that kind of stuff. I got to listen to people. And then I don't, you know, it's like, I so I guess I have, I think there's a, there's something about the therapeutic training or something, it's not seeing the bigger picture, necessarily, I mean, General, broad generalizations. But it's like, oh, we're just gonna listen to people. And, you know, the culture is dysfunctional, that's how it is. And there's no hope, if I will just listen to people patch them up. And it's a we got to transform society. Yeah.
Um, so I'm hearing you say that therapists are actually in a position where they're actually in a really good position to make change and to kind of encourage great change and even go into Congress and things like that. And yet, oftentimes, what you observe is that mental health professionals maybe don't do that they're kind of more focused on getting clients or passing up those in front of them without broadening out to the larger context.
And finally, the emergency empathy came from a term I heard within NVC, whereas if somebody is in high level of distress, and just in personal relationships, sometimes you just got to give them emergency empathy, you just got to listen, you can't expect them to listen, you know, their life is falling apart. So that's the emergency empathy that just anyone can give to anyone else just to listen, anyone in distress. And but I always hold the emergency empathy is because I found listening. And my goal is always to bring them into a mutual empathy. And can we agree to it and say, Hey, how about we move to a mutual agreement to have mutual empathy? So anyway, that's where I first heard the term emergency empathy was in the nonviolent communication community.
Yeah. So emergency empathy, it sounds like comes out of the context where mutual empathy might be the norm, or the absolute goal, that there's this idea that sometimes you have to just actually be there, listen, or actively listen to one person, if who might be going through a crisis or something like that. expecting it to kind of come back?
Yeah, I feel fully heard. Yeah. Hmm. Well, um,
I think I'll have to kind of play with these ideas a little bit more. It's interesting, because I just did a class on teaching a class on psychotherapy, we just had a class on context. And you know, how to kind of work with people that may be from different ethnic or cultural racial backgrounds and kind of skills necessary to do that. And the the competence and humility that's required to do that. And I don't know, I kind of thought that these discussions on empathy have a lot to do with actually being able to effectively treat kind of someone from a different background. You know, I'm not exactly sure how that maps on but that's where my mind's at right now.
Yes, your mind is on the class that you're teaching about the context of therapy within context, that's from people from all kinds of different cultures. And how does this kind of map on to to that? I think you're saying that there's like, something that's universal to everyone that like listening or therapy, that's a universal talk contexts or, or just just even thinking about what the role of context
just even thinking about the role and What's the what's the therapist responsibility, like, if somebody comes in with a, an entirely different identity, kind of like culture, you know, whether that be ethnic culture, gender, sexual identity, whatever, how what's my responsibility in terms of working with that person. And what the literature says is, it's sort of a mixture of its informed curiosity, like you have a responsibility to sort of research and know about where that person is coming from. But you also have a responsibility to be humble enough and open enough to consider the shortcomings of your knowledge, even after you've researched or whatever.
So the literature, so you're kind of exploring this, this territory, and that the literature is saying, to have a curiosity for, for whatever the differences are gender, cultural, and it's just having that they it's just curiosity sounds like to know the background story, that they have the context, that they're coming from, maybe their belief systems, and to have, and there's something else that even when you know, that, that there's still something that's not still not quite enough to have,
like, right, like, there's a mixture of openness and humility on one side, but like, also knowledge and competence on the other. So if you really don't know anything about a certain, you know, ethnic culture that you take on a patient from with that sort of a background than actually taking upon yourself to like, read and gather information on that before you have a session, but not not then using that information defensively, to block off further learning about the individual. So
so to read and understand maybe that culture, but then not to use that coat that knowledge in some way that's going to block the connection.
Yeah, exactly. And so it's not the it's not at all kind of what you're talking about in terms of reaching the wider context. But it's an attempt to, at least not unknowingly shut down the empathic connection with the other person, because you don't know what you don't know, type thing.
So there's something about being careful not to shut down. Oh, shut down connection with them. Because there's something that's happening that you don't know about. There's some dynamic happening that you don't know. You don't know what you don't know. Yeah.
Yeah. And so I think it can be tricky. Even working in the vacuum of the therapeutic relationship, there's a lot that can go wrong. So just too bad to think about Yeah.
It's too bad to think about.
Yeah, cuz because you were. I mean, it's just I think we're limited in terms of how well we can listen and be there for another person in a way that's as effective as possible, even without kind of reaching beyond into the larger culture.
So there's just challenges to listen to someone just without even having all that other information that kind of, is there and maybe just looking at that, how do you listen more deeply, just in general versus without all that background knowledge of knowing the whole culture and background that they, they might be what they might be dealing with?
Yeah, but there has to be a way and I think like I was saying before, the more relational approaches. They, it has a way of permeate permeating out into aspects of another person's life that hopefully in the relationship with the therapist, they come to be more comfortable with closeness in general. And that changes their relationships with people outside of the therapeutic setting, and that, hopefully, in an ideal world percolates out into the culture. So that's sort of the idea. Yeah.
So the, the idea that you you're thinking of, is it in the therapeutic relationship, that the connection that's happening there, it's a relationship that's happening will ripple out into the broader have an effect on the broader culture?
Yeah, well, not just me, but it's like a relational psycho analytic kind of idea that the person through the relationship becomes more capable of relating more capable of intimacy and that has a ripple effect on their relationships just like your name?
Yeah, so the literature is talking about that the more that the relationship that the therapist has with the client, that they're developing more of a relationship. And the literature says that that has a ripple effect. Right going out. So it kind of affects the culture by hopefully, hopefully, yeah. Hopefully. Yeah.
Yeah, there were, I appreciate the kind of wide ranging exploration, it does help, you know, just to say these different concepts. Sharam, get some clarity also kind of tunes, our, our thinking. So I appreciate. You know, it's not where I grew up. Here's the typology, you know, bucket bucket bucket, throw everything into these buckets kind of wide ranging. So I find it I think it is, it's a it's a more emergent process. And I one benefit, I find, it's helpful just to throw these ideas out, that I've been thinking about, you know, and to just kind of be heard about it. And so I appreciate it.
Yeah. So you just, I think you're saying that you can appreciate this emergent process that doesn't feel too, I don't know, maybe like, you know, here's, you know, creating buckets and just kind of putting our ideas into the buckets as we go, it's just more emergent. So maybe kind of able to appreciate the complexity of this and kind of get some of your ideas out that you haven't been able to and feel.
And for example, with the with the knowing the context, a lot of times the context doesn't really help. I find, for example, we did conflict mediation at Berkeley, you know, when the political right came and Tifa, were there. And one of the groups said, Yeah, you gotta understand where all these people are coming from. And Lou every said, you know, actually, I don't even want to know, right, because it's like having all that context, kind of clouds of the can cloud, the just the presence, and there's something about the presence and laying the energies that want to arise, arise kind of in the moment and for them to sort of work themselves out, they don't even need to know all the background stories. So that's something
saying, yeah, like the tent, the conflict resolution tent, like just kind of letting people talk and letting the energies kind of intermingle or contradict one another was for you, in lieu, it sounds like that's what you would have preferred rather than having the backstory, because that kind of clouds things and maybe impacts the way that you observe and hear.
Exactly, so you're kind of like seeing the humanity of everyone. And it's the same way it my sense, in in terms of the, the the culture, it kind of at large is like when I do these empathy circles, people are coming from all over the world. Now, my years of traveling, it's like, for me, it's like, there's something really the same with everyone, no matter what, I don't even need to so much No, there's sort of a deeper common humanity, that I don't need to know if they're part of the Taliban or part of, you know, whatever, you know, whatever group or some kind of minority or the whole dynamic, it's sort of the space, the empathic, mutual empathic listening space that it's like, all these stories come up, they're all having the same problems are having the same problems with their family relationships with their work with their neighbors. It's kinda like the same things that keep coming up. Yeah.
Oh, wow. So you're reflecting on your experience of doing empathy circles and drawing people from all walks of life, different ethnicities, different cultures, different places, and in observing that they often talk about a lot of the same themes. And so you kind of notice this sameness or similarities, universal aspects.
Yeah, and I've heard there's a lot of talk now with the sort of the social justice stuff like oh, there's these cultures, you have to understand all the nuances of all the cultures and I'm kind of like, I don't really care as far as I want to get you into the empathy circle, follow the rules, and it'll all kind of work out is is is kind of my my approach. You know, if you can just stick with it, it's gonna work out it's just like a deep, you know, experience in faith or something.
So you're just like you're encouraging people to stick with the empathy circle movement and that you know, that perhaps in so doing, you know, they're not going to be worried about me research that maybe you did or didn't do, or you know that you've kind of taken that off the table, just come to this circle, and you'll see the commonalities in the sense of being heard.
Yeah, exactly. It's sort of the context. It's that listening context and being willing to give the same, you know, giving time to the other person, being able to reflect to all the things that we're doing. It's like, it'll all kind of work out if we have enough time. You know, if you if you stick to it, like plenty of people withdraws. I don't, I don't want this I want to go. But if you stick with it, it's, I just Yeah, I just think that you stay present without there's plenty of people that are like, Oh, I don't want this or whatever. But I think it's the persistence.
So there's a lot of people that withdraw from these empathy circles. But if you're saying that the persistence and continuing to do it and immersing yourself in this culture, does, you know that it's helpful.
Yeah. Yeah, I feel sorry. For her. Yeah, um,
I mean, I've always kind of felt very similarly, about
I guess, the utility in recognizing, you know, commonalities, and I, I think that cultures move so towards recognizing differences, or, or emphasizing differences, that. Yeah, that at some point, I'm kind of like, well, how do I work with this, you know, it's, um, but the empathy circle is a great way to be able to bridge this these strong, these very big gaps that have now formed, or I think these really big divisions that are formed, I guess.
So you've wondered about, you've thought that to something about the common humanity, you've had sort of a sense of that, but then how do you deal you're wondering, how do you deal with these big divisions are coming up in society? And then you see the empathy circle is one way to address that?
Yeah, I think that it has the practicality of it, the practice of it, and how practical it is, has the capacity to just completely transform the whole feel of a group, like a classroom, even me bringing it into the classroom. Because as intuitive as it is, or feels, it actually is as natural as it feels to hear and be heard that I think that's just such a basic human thing. It's not done, it's not really done, you know, especially in group settings, or institutional settings, and so on, you know, maybe, maybe that's why people withdraw from it. You know, this is scarier, I'm not really quite sure what to do with it, you know, where do I go from here? If this is the only place I experienced it, then how do I? Where do I how do I start to even bring it in? So that's kind of
my thinking, oh, so just thinking about the groups in general have that mutual listening and institutions. And you could see people might withdraw, they come in there, and they say, Now, where do I go with this? You know, my, my world isn't like this. Right? And so you have some understanding, or trying to name why people might drop out of it. Yeah.
It really opens people up in a way that maybe is uncommon for them in this, you know, day and age, like to feel that it's not even, you know, just I guess it's just a little bit more exposed. It's not even really that big of a deal when it comes down to it. But it's just, it is very different from how, you know, things have become so closed, you know, in terms of how much we're willing to kind of share and yeah, and share, share and, you know, I guess receive?
Yes, it's sort of uncommon for the culture in general, like, how we are share and in the empathy circle and received, and it's not even that big of a deal. In a sense. It's not even that big of a deal, but it sort of is because of the context of what's happening in society. But in normal life, it doesn't seem like it would be that big of a deal, but it is. Yeah,
right. Exactly. So there's like some cognitive dissonance that I think form, it's like, well, yeah, it feels like it feels like you have to go against the grain a little bit in order to bring it in to the, to the, in a cultural way, like to bring it in, in the sense that you're wanting and intending it to be brought in. Like, it's become something that's almost relegated to close relationships or more private spaces, like a therapy room, you know. And so and that, not that that I think that it shouldn't be that way. But, yeah,
so that that deeper listening has been relegated to a therapy room or certain close relationships. And the it doesn't, doesn't, that it shouldn't be that way. It has to, you don't, it's just that that's kind of what's happened. And that can sort of maybe hard for people to navigate, like, how do they navigate that are not in the regular relationships?
Yeah, I, once I had a friend from Greece, and she would say to me, we don't have therapists in Greece, we just go meet for coffee with friends. And I felt kind of offended by that, because this is, you know, but it in the years since she said that, to me, I've realized though she's talking about really the cultural context in which something takes place and how, in a different cultural context, so much therapy might not be as necessary, and it's nothing against therapists. But in a way, that's kind of what we're dealing with.
Yeah, it's that listening to each other is done just between friends in general. And your, it sounds like in Greece, she said, they're just people just go have coffee with their friends and talk about what's going on in their life. And they get that therapeutic listening.
Yeah, it's sort of normalized more, such as an empathy circle. Like, it sounds like that's more built into the culture there.
Yeah, just like the empathy circle, you kind of just have that. Yeah. Yeah, I
feel heard. Okay.
How are you on time for Tony?
I could go 10 more minutes, maybe? Yeah, right. Yeah.
Yeah, I think that is what I'm looking for sort of that cultural change. You know, I just figured if we can get the politicians to be doing empathy circles with each other, if we could model it, you know, get the Presidential, you know, debates to be empathy circles that it could normalize. It's like, there's no reason that this couldn't be culturally normalized. Right. Yeah.
So you're just you're reiterating that that's exactly what you're after is like normalizing this sort of thing, and bringing it into Congress, bring it into presidential debates, or having them not be debate SEC correctly. Um, yeah, that there's no reason it shouldn't be.
Yeah, so it just becomes a cultural value, how to, and I think it's all doable, it's just takes, you know, kind of the right breakthrough, the persistence, you know, different strategies to bring it into the culture. So, and one part of that is to have a clear definition of what we're talking about, right? It's like, you know, where it's like, some flight and I had posted two videos of like, these sort of cartoon, you know, these animations. One was on active listening. And the other one is on the importance of, of empathy. And it's just like, an easy narrative, fun, entertaining, I have like that, one, the importance of empathy as 10 million views, right. So having some definitions that are clear and easy, you know, and the differentiation so that when somebody like Paul Bloom says, I'm against empathy. So that's, that's over here. That's what he's talking about. Something that just the average person can say, Oh, I see what he's talking about. That's not even what we call empathy. So that to bring it into the culture, we need, like clear definitions, you know, understanding of what we're even talking about. So yeah.
Well, you're further stating that this shouldn't really I mean, it shouldn't really be that difficult to bring into the culture. But part of being able to do that requires having a clear topology of what exactly it is so that those terms can actually be in kind of baked into the cultural discourse more.
Yeah. And the terms are out there. All those academics have all laid out different models. And you know, Bateson was trying to show how they fit together least one, Daniel Goleman has his model. I think there's Mark Davis, too. He was he had created a little a typology, and there's two It's such there's been several attempts that sort of simple or various typologies. So far, I've seen that then battens has been most robust. Or so yeah. So anyway, that's
it. Guys. You saying it's already been there already, the terms are already out there. And there's all these different constellations like Dan Goleman. Has is and then there's Dave, Mark Davis has his and, and then there's, you know, Beth, Beth has his.
So yeah, just to be continued, I guess, just keep sort of exploring kind of looking at, I just find it helpful to, you know, just sort of see what emerges, maybe we won't go anywhere, you know, with the discussion, see if we can bring others into the discussion, kind of get their perspectives, I think we need some, you know, people who can have that simplifying those skills to make, like, some simple explanations, like it's beyond my capacity to make those types of cartoons there. And that in the document, I made some links to it. Yeah, so it's, yeah, that, and again, I to make it to have empathy, you know, become a social, primary social value, I guess that's why I'm thinking it's important for at least for me to why what I'm wanting, I guess the reason for it.
Yeah. So wanting to make empathy of primary social value, and maybe using these graphs, and these videos in order to that can be easily viewed and passed around, like this one that's got 10 million views? And yeah, yeah. And kind of bringing more people into this circle to kind of that might be able to distill down some of the concepts we're coming to.
Exactly, yeah, I feel fully heard. Yeah. Um,
yeah, I feel like we cover a lot of ground in these, these meta circles. But, um, I'd almost like to kind of look over the transcript and see because it's, I like the emergent property of it. But some of what we come to, I think, you know, there's other things that come up, and kind of becomes hard to remember all of what we've said and how it might fit together with the last one.
So reviewing the transcripts to just remember what we what we talked about the concepts and stuff. So you'd like to see the transcripts?
Yeah. Yeah, I know that a lot is coming together for for me, you know, a lot of new ideas. And it's interesting kind of, to hear your ideas as well. And and, even though we're talking about slightly different things, or we have slightly different points of reference, like I I also feel very excited about the idea of creating a culture of empathy. But it's not where I, you know, I'm my home base is more as a therapist and training other therapists and things like that. But I don't really think they're, you know, so different at the end of the day.
So so the culture of empathy, that vision and training therapists, they're not that different in terms of the vision.
Yeah, I think they can kind of speak to each other. A bit. Yeah, so that's,
so you see the overlap, and they speak to each other and they relate to each other. So our visions are not policy, going a different direction. There's an overlap there as a divisions and pensions.
Okay, yeah,
yeah, those are more
just that I could see, you know, I could see writing up a paper or some sort of an informational video or something about the ways that they overlap and the ways that they're distinct. And I don't know that might be, it might be informative for people about like, this isn't just something that you get, you know, this isn't just something that you have to pay for. You can also like, live in actually a culture where it's normalized or you know, or you can also engage in You know, mutual empathy. And
so you can imagine a paper that shows the two different visions and how they relate that it's not where you just like pay for therapy, but there's sort of a larger or another context to and kind of comparing or describing that, that context. Yeah, relations,
the nature of one informs the other, the nature of the culture informs what the therapy will be, and vice versa. So I'm sure that would be an interesting study, like to look at how therapy is practiced in different cultures, and how that relates to the culture at large.
So how therapy relates to the culture at large or different cultures? And so the relationship of therapy to a larger cultural context? And so the, sort of the details of that nuances of it?
Yeah, I feel very good. Okay.
Great. To do something I was gonna say, it's always I'm always focused at all, I remember I want to say, shoot or something, I think that's why I think a couple people, more people, so that, while we're listening, we can also take notes, right? Can't take notes here. That's what I like about four people, or even five people to the circle is that I can take notes, but that reminded me what I was gonna say is that so when this is uploaded to YouTube, YouTube will create a transcript of it, it's not a very clean transcript. It's it the, everything's just mushed. Together, there's no capitalization. And then there's other programs that actually will take it and create the they'll differentiate between speakers, you can have Speaker One, Speaker two, plus, they'll put in capitalization. And I was like, really surprised at how how good it was. So you have to pay for that one. It's something like $12 An hour or something six of transcript. So, whereas the YouTube one is free, and there is another program that that Google is, they have their own Google meet. And it does transcriptions too. So I thought where we could try is just trying to I don't want to pay a whole bunch for transcripts. But there's, there's different ways of getting the transcripts. And how do you get a cleaner transcript? Yeah, is a question. So that's something to sort of research.
Yeah. So maybe something we can research is how to get a transcript of some of these sessions. If we can't get someone or another two to three people to join them. And that they're that way we'd be able to take notes while they're happening. To be able to pay to get the punctuation and capitalization and everything. In addition to YouTube's
so yeah, I feel her so they just something to think about for fine with any final thoughts, just to drop the reflection. So
yeah, no, this was great. Thank you. And I yeah, I'll let you know if anything further comes to mind. And did you want to meet next week as well?
Yeah. Next week is good. Same time. So work.
Yeah, that works. And I'm going to probably read that paper that I sent you, it seems really I don't know, it seems applicable. But
it's great. I really enjoy it with especially with your clinical background, you know, it fuses your like I mentioned before the clinicians are digging into the nuts and bolts, you know, and they have the lived experience the experience of having to listen to people and the challenges that come up. So I really enjoy you know, talking to clinicians, people are doing the empathy work, so I'm enjoying
Yeah, my pleasure. I'll definitely be listening differently going forward. So
yeah. Okay, then next week,
that sounds great. Thanks so much that
and the videos on our document, there's a fear I do keep posting stuff so that's our if you have the link there but that's that's the link to the document and I put the to being a good listener and the importance of empathy videos they're awesome thank you kind of get a sense of you know, I want to you know, robust typology, but also a simple, accessible something to is was hoping for.
Yeah. That's great. Okay. I'll take a look at all this. I think I've been in here before, actually. When you first sent this around, yeah, I think you must have added stuff to it.
Keep adding stuff. So the word document for this?
Yeah, I like the image. Yeah. All right.
Okay, good shadows.
Awesome. All right. Look forward to next week. Take care. Bye
