Okay, yeah, so Tina, she's doing a conference, mediation conference. So she did invite me to speak. Is that what you're talking about? That conference? Or
yes, she sent me an invitation to submit abstract, and I said, or a workshop. So I said I'd let you know, and everybody know. Oh,
okay, I I said I was just kind of busy for organizing something there. So I recommended Lou, so she was going to check with him, and I suggested she presents something too. So I didn't, I want to kind of focus on this definition project. So okay, well, let's see. Let me get the agenda. So I got on the agenda here. It's our meeting for the defining empathy project. You can see we turn on the recording, turn on the Zoom AI. Intention is to build the empathy movement and to make mutual empathy a core cultural value, just kind of setting the attention. This is our first meeting here. I'm just trying to get the structure set up. The vision for the well, for the definition project is to just get together some presentations, and I think actually a workshop. I'm thinking of turning this into a workshop on the definition of empathy. And so maybe we can just get started with introductions. You know why you're interested in the definition project I'll start, you know, I've been working on this for like, 15 years, and, you know, have a lot of material about the definitions I've researched, you know, just a lot about the definition. So I have a whole model in my head that's a little different. And I think most models, and I want to get this down into, you know, into writing better, get it better documented, and then be able to, I think, for an empathy movement, that we need to have a clear definition, and not only for you know, us to have a clear definition, but for the definition to be out there that other people can use. And so I think it's, it's a really important things in such a mess right now, with the definitions, I can go into that later, but we want to get some clarity, you know, on that. So, yeah, so Jenna, are you interested
in this I interested. Well, I think it's difficult to define empathy. I I think that empathy, having given it some thought, since you bring keep bringing it up, I think that
empathy and love and compassion are more useful synonymous. There are many revolutions. There are many movements. There's the me too, we movement. There's the attention revolution, there's the ethics revolution. There's the whole list of revolutions. So I compiled, one time for Twitter, a whole list of revolutions. So revolution and movement are similar, not exactly the same, but, yeah, I'm little concerned, if the definition of empathy is narrow, then it just encompasses emotions and doesn't encompass I don't know how to say, let's see where it goes. And then I also think it's meaningful and helpful to talk about what is not empathy and to be really clear about what we need to abandon. So that's something that I've presented and worked on. You know, the causes of unhappiness, okay?
And Daniel, what's your reason or interest in this topic?
Um, this is kind of fresh for me. You know, that's why I'm interested. Because this is, I think we need sort of directionalities that lead us into the future, and I believe empathy is one of them empathy is in is something that points to something that we haven't yet really explored as human being. And. And it points to that interrelational data, to what flows between us, and not to the typical static data. That's that we used to in our scientific thinking. Like we always like point of to something, and then we try to nail it down, or empathy. Empathy, to me, is something flowing, something alive, and to do it better, the other
thing again, you broke other things
did I break up?
Okay, I hear you now. Okay.
So that's this. There's a lot of have behind that. That's why I broke up just a moment I
um,
I'm interested also, simply because I think empathy has a moment. The word just the word itself as a moment. It has some magnetic nature to it, and so it's it's just simply something that seems to make it easy to like, a catalyst around a whole number of sentiments that people have in themselves that don't have a direction to go into, and empathy seems to be that container that can capture that in this moment of time. And so I see it also as like an opening that behind it we can, once we have, we open this direction, now, this direction to go into empathy, then what comes afterwards is a lot of material and a lot of wisdom that I think sits in humanity that can be opened up once we have a more empathetic connection to each other. Because I think there's more to the story than just empathy circles and talking to each other, there's more to work through on a deeper level, and empathy is the opening to that that attracts me,
but I can reflect that. So you see that empathy has this moment. It's a container for maybe, like, the direction humanity is going that, that, it, it's, it's, it's, kind of, there's an unfolding, maybe, of for humanity. And this unfolding, is it what empathy supports,
right? And I just on a on my bill, on the belief level, or and something that I feel that's going on, I feel like very similar to Bill, with this unified empathetic feel that that what we call empathy, is actually something that flows between us. It's not just something I give to you you give to me at times and other times. It's not there. Empathy is a word that points to something that we can access between each other, and when we do, we feel different. It actually makes a state difference. For us, we change state from not heard this from so many people, and it may be the empathy circle, but that they come in in one state, into the circle, and they leave in a different state. They come in a little bit, you know, conflicted, depressed, separated, whatever, and they leave feeling connected and more whole and and there's, there's a force behind it, that's, that's what I feel,
yeah. Well, the other thing is, yeah, I'm just going to reflect back here, yeah. Try that is that there's a, there's sort of this empathy, unified field, a field of empathy. Usually empathy is sort of defined individualistically, but you're looking at the relationship between people. And when people go into this field, be it in an empathy circle, they come out, they've changed. They and that's it's about. It's valuable. I. Here,
yeah, and it's, you can compare it a little bit. I feel like to Faraday, this French researcher he was before him, people thought that magnetism is something like that. There's sort of like a radiation from the North Pole it radiates, and then there's a radiation from the south pole that radiates. And then Faraday said, no, no, that's not what's going on. There's a continuous field of magnetism that radiate that at any point between those two points, that field is there. And I feel a similar thing with empathy. Empathy is there already, and when we quote, unquote, behave right, we tap into that, we open the channels to that.
So empathy is always there. It's just a matter of opening the channels to the empathy kind of make that and the empathy is that connection so that between people, right? And it's a matter if it's already there, and you want to kind of open up the field, connect to it, and you just see the importance of it for a huge human, human development. So maybe we could do definitions to be good, to start with each person's definition. Jen, would you want to give your definition of empathy, current definition, and I'll give a reflection to what I hear.
I gave a definition of relational empathy for DJ, so there's all kinds of empathy. So what kind of empathy would you like me to define?
Well, tell me the different empathies that you see then. So what I'm hearing is you have relational empathy, and you're wondering which version version of empathy that you want to define. So first would be, what are the different versions of empathy?
I well, it can be self empathy and relational empathy. It can be you like, holistic empathy, mutual empathy. Empathy doesn't have to be mutual. I um, yeah, so there can be many empathies,
okay, there's a lot of different empathies, yeah. Well, that's great. That's what we want to explore. Any are you using those from the model that I put out there? I mean, where you got your definitions?
Well, when we did that defining empathy a couple years ago, we did a whole Friday series on defining empathy. So we all give presentations on these different empathies.
Which which empathy? Of those different types of empathy. Which one is most meaningful to you?
To me, relational empathy is the most meaningful I have. A little video where we talked about it, I don't think I can repeat what I said. Then, oh, okay, let me find it for
you. If you got the link, I can I have the link.
Let me find it for you. Take a moment. Maybe Daniel wants to say something her empathy while
you're looking for that definition of empathy, Daniel,
um, yeah, I want to kind of stick for now with that empathy is the felt sense of relational energy, and that can be relational to myself. I can have a self. Empathy is also a relation to me. I relate to me, and when I have a choice to relate to me in various different ways, and you can make the empathetic choice to be empathetic with yourself, and then you you tap in that same flow. Also, empathy is centrist. Empathy is something that points to the middle, to the center, to the core, because it's inclusive. There's one of the things that, I think is part what defines empathy. Empathy is 100% inclusive.
You got, yeah, you got the relation felt sense. It's a felt sense, and it's a felt sense in a relationship, and it can be the relationship with yourself or other. And empathy also points to the an inclusive center. Me, I mean, like it includes everyone, like, like a political center or a social center, that it's kind of in the middle, and it kind of listens to all and includes all the different sides,
yeah, and also in, in in self perception, if you open up empathetically to yourself, there's no part of you that you can exclude, right? And if you it's, it's, it's, it's a pathway to wholeness. You
yeah, now I want to say also, what's not, I don't think that some people that define it, that define themselves as Empath and they seem to be saying that they're picking up the emotions from others and mirror them themselves, and that that's difficult and hard to do, and I think it's it's a trauma resonance. If you empathetic with somebody else's trauma and you get triggered by it, then it's your trauma. It has nothing to do with the other person,
yeah? So right here, there, you're just like, Jenna, you're looking at what is not empathy. So there's the empathy component and what is not and like the empaths taking on other feelings, you don't see that as is empathy, in terms of taking on trauma, right? Okay, okay. Jenna, you still there. I have a link to that. I'll look at it later. Or is that a longer, longer clip, or you're muted,
that's like a six minute clip, and it includes other definitions from everybody who was participating for relational, relational empathy. Everybody paid it, offered DJ. I don't know if DJ offered it a definition, but Wendy Ridley was there, and few people were there Violetta? Few people and everybody? Yeah,
Violetta will be here in about 45 minutes.
And so that was my definition that I offered, and that's the clip.
Okay, so I don't want to go into too much there right now, but I just made a link to it and go in after and get the transcription from that. Did you make that video? Or is that? Oh, you copied
it. Was your DJ recorded it? I guess you DJ had it, or you had it. Somebody had it, and I just clipped a little piece. Okay, yeah, and posted it.
So that was just sort of our introduction. It's okay. If I look at it later and run it, I put it into otter AI, I'll get a transcript of it. So we'll have an actual transcript. There's
a transcript in YouTube. I just copied the what I said on relational empathy. I can read it, if you like. Oh, okay. So what I said in the video is relational is, to me, how we are existing. We exist relationally. So it's fundamental to understanding and appreciating self and other, animate and inanimate, living and non living. Empathy is the intention of kindness, compassion, genuine concern and caring for all that I exist in relation to.
That's what I said. Yeah, that's something I can agree to, because it points to the fundamental understanding, yeah. I mean, like, yeah, it's
okay. So I was thinking of showing the slideshow. So what I'm imagining is taking this slideshow, going through it, discussing it, and then build on it, and then that work for everyone.
Okay, you mean in terms of a workshop, in terms of just
now for discussion, you know, because I want to build on this slide show is sort of our starting point. And then, you know, we can flesh out the, expand on the slideshow, which is sort of an intro to, you know, to holistic empathy model. And then I think we could even turn it into a workshop eventually, too, you know. So it's just, just be our. Our our starting point.
So in terms of, like, a workshop on conflict resolution, conflict like would that be blocks empathy? Conflict and empathy would be what are not blocks to conflict like these would be separate workshops. Is that? How you envision it?
I see like having our empathy circle, we have our empathy circle facilitator training. This would be a separate workshop on just what is empathy. It could tie in to issues like you know, how does the this model work within conflict too. But it's not like a whole workshop for empathy and conflict, but it would be kind of setting the stage for for the for other workshops too. Well,
I can see, kind of see it as levels, like, if you wanted to do like the facilitator training is like ground zero, I guess that's a good term to use in this context. And then level one, you know, the elevator sometimes has the lobby floor. And then floor one would be the defining empathy. And then level two would be, you know, conflict resolution,
yeah, well, this would be, this would be helpful. So when we're used, when we're talking about conflict resolution, that we have the same vocabulary and kind of develop the same vocabulary, so that, you know, right now, I bet you people have all well, if you go into the empathy circle facilitator training, people have all kinds of definitions, I'm sure, and maybe not even talking about the same thing. Let me go into let me just share. We'll do a screen share. Let me give you both co hosts too. Yes. Okay, so I
Okay, so you've seen this that you've seen this slide show before, but I just wanted to go through it kind of step by step, and maybe discuss it, and maybe, and if you have ideas on how to improve it, too. So let me get some notes here. You're
going to present this on in is this what you're presenting for the seventh global empathy conference? Right?
So this, well, this one, this slideshow, was for the, you know, for the April 5. So I'm kind of presenting it over and over again, but, you know, doing refinements. And so this, this opening slide, is just for the April 5, but I'm going to use it for the May to May 23 international conference. And so we got our defining empathy in the context of the empathy circle. So this is, this is, like I'm saying before that I really want to focus on this, because it's, there's so much confusion. You know, we did some projects before on the definitions, but I kind of set that aside when we started working on the empathy center, and so I didn't really finish it. So I want to really, kind of nail this down. And so this year, I really want to focus on this topic, to get this doc well documented. And one thing I want to do is create this presentation, you know, I want to write some articles. I want to create a workshop and even a book, you know, on on the topic. And so this is sort of the beginning of this project. And the core of the definition that I want to do is tie the definition of empathy into the empathy circle so we have something concrete to an actual experience to map these, these different qualities of empathy too. Because right now, a lot of the definitions, you know, it's very abstract, and it gets very confusing because of the abstract this of it. And I think that by defining empathy within the empathy circle itself that you know, is going to add some clarity. So for example, you both came up with some definitions, and you know, we could take your definitions and actually map it onto the empathy circle as an example. So any thoughts on that?
Yeah, I. I feel a certain caution in a direction of like, I don't know like, if you envision a tree, I would like to define empathy by going to the root system and not by going into, like the 1000s different forms of empathy that can be imagined that I think is counterproductive. We want to we want to go into a model more defined. That's my idea. May be wrong, but a direction of defining empathy that doesn't make empathy like wash out more and more and more into all kinds of aspects, but zoom in to what is the core quality that we are. We are sort of gathering around. That's really the because I, you know, I tend to have, in general, a problem with so many of of the sort of defining movements that I've been in. It always like expands and expands, expands and nobody, after a while, it loses power in a way. I think, okay, yeah,
so instead of, I mean, just, I'll just reflect back. So you want to get to the core, sort of the essence of empathy, and not, you know, expand it. Or, you know, it's kind of like everything is empathy or something? Yeah, really get to the core of it. Do you feel that this is too expansive or right now, or is just something that came to mind?
No, I I think the red thread what I hear is that relational aspect of of empathy now that can go into different forms of expression. I'm not against that. I'm not against anything, actually, but I'm just cautionary, right? So,
yeah, I feel like there's a field actually that we're in other words, the more people are engaging in empathetic relations with each other, the stronger the empathetic field becomes,
okay? So we've got this circle here of seven people, and you're looking at the empathy field, so the quality between those seven people is, yeah, the relational empathy, and that, that's the field. And you're really wanting to sounds like you think that looking at that field of the quality is really what you're interested in.
Yes, yeah, right. And it's also the thing that is weaker when we start and the deeper we go in the circle, the more we listen to each other. Everybody has, I've heard it from everybody in one way or another afterwards, feels different this shift of state.
And so there's quality there. So this, what I'm hearing there, is that the empathy is is core to that field in this group. But the longer they do this empathic listening, so the deeper that quality of empathy becomes over time. And you've heard that from other people as well,
right? And and
that when we do that, we strengthen the empathetic field
for everybody,
everybody in the circle, or everybody in the world, or everybody
in The world. Okay.
Any thoughts so far, Jana, before we go to the next slide,
well, I'm kind of wishing that you would repeat everything you said about your introduction here, but I was I'm reading Barbara Fredericks in love 2.0 and she defines love is micro moments of positivity, connection, positivity resonance, and she has three properties of positivity resonance. Can I read it? It's a very short paragraph. Get it? I.
Even though she really rarely uses the word empathy in her book, I find this totally consistent with the experience in the empathy circle. So maybe what we're defining as empathy, she's defining as love. So she says, love blossoms virtually anytime two or more people, even strangers, connect over a shared positive emotion, be it mild or strong. To put it in a nutshell, love is the momentary upwelling of three tightly interwoven events. First, a sharing of one or more positive emotions between you and another. Second, a synchrony between your and the other person's biochemistry and behaviors. And third, a reflective, reflected motive to invest in each other's well being that brings mutual care. My shorthand for this trio is positivity, resonance, and that's it. She likens it to a mirror,
yeah. So in this in this group here, he's just talking about how love would form between the participants in this circle, and it's when they're sharing something that they're sort of love growing,
which and so these micro moments of positivity resonance have a biological counterpart. So this from a scientific, you know, kind of, I don't want to ruin, you know, kind of the magical, you know, kind of relation to it. But, you know, increased oxytocin, the vagus nerve, you know all these things she lists like all these physical interact, things that happen in the body, when we share a smile, when we share just a moment even of mild kindness with another person, eye contact,
she lists a few things. And how are you tying it into this? And all these things
happen every time you do reflective listening, every time you reflect a phrase, I mean, you're right there with the other person, totally connected so that. So we're just generating countless moments of micro, moments of positivity resonance, and I'm reading love 2.0 that just seems like a perfect fit for the
empathy circle itself is kind of building love through all these micro moments. I say empathy circle is micro dosing love. So, yeah,
yeah, it's so could
tie it into love, yeah. So empathy and love? How that that edit? Yeah. So
then, are we doing empathy, like, are we doing empathic listening? Are we doing loving listening? Well, there's all
kinds of. There's going to be all kinds of, you know, other things that come up to other feelings. I mean, in this circle, we have the whole of humanity experience, right? We have it kind of we're just going to try to focus on the define, on the empathy part itself. I just find that I'm just waiting for Daniel, but I find words like love is too intense, too strong, like you can bring people who are in conflict to kind of hate each other into the empathy circle, and give it enough time they listen to each other, and they start resonating with each other. And it can build that sense of care and so and it can, it can build those other feelings. But let's move on here before we get too stuck in one slide. So what I'm talking about, I wanted to frame the presentation in the sense of building an empathy movement. I guess you could say is like, why are we doing it right, and, and, or why are we even building the empathy movement? So the why of it, and I personally just feel that it's, you know, just going to lead to my experience. It just leads to better well being. And, you know, for humanity in general, so why? So for the definition, want to Yeah, go ahead, Daniel, you're muted,
and I have my microphone. Yeah? I hear you, yeah. I. I don't know the word mutual before empathy in this sentence sounds conditional to me. In other words, if we build an empathy movement and we make it dependent on others being empathetic with us, then we're not showing leadership. We're reactive to the behaviors of others. So I wouldn't put mutual before, because I don't require for somebody else to be empathetic with me, for me to be empathetic with them, right? I see it. That's my comment. Yeah, I get
it. So it's that, it's like you want to be the one that's empathic and not require it of others. What I'm looking at, I think the empathy movement, is we want to make it a cultural value to make and that means that everybody's sort of empathizing with everyone else, so creating the conditions for that, at least that's kind of how I'm looking at it. So any thoughts Jenna, before we move on? Yeah,
no, I understand both of you. I think we can aspire to mutual empathy. Yeah,
yeah. It's an aspiration. It's required, yeah, and that's, it's the means are the end, right, too. So it's like, it's the first step, if the other side or others don't want to empathize, that we empathize with them and model, model it, but we want to bring them into a we want to bring them into mutuality, you know, so, and then I'm just kind of setting the stage for, you know, what is empathy? So we want an empathy movement, but what is empathy and, and I think everyone's seen this, but I'll just show it again. So when Barack Obama said he was going to choose a Supreme Court justice that had, you know, all these different qualities, intelligence and everything, and he said and had a sense of empathy. It really got conservatives upset. And this was Jeff Sessions, who's was at the time he was head of the Judiciary Committee that you know the justices go through, and this is just what he was saying about empathy.
See if it plays and
anyway, what is empathy? What is empathy? Is this your personal feeling that you are had a tough childhood, or something prejudice that you have you're Protestant or Catholic, your ethnicity, your race, some biases you brought with you to life and to the court? Is that what an empathy is?
Yeah, so I kind of find a bit humorous. I mean, he's asking what they what I would have loved to have seen is a hearing about what is empathy in the judiciary. You know, how they have they bring in people, and it's like, well, let's get a definition. I would have loved to have been there to explain what what we mean by empathy and and it became really core issue with the where they created a hand a questionnaire that every circuit and district court and Supreme Court Justice has to fill out their view on empathy. I don't know if they still do it, but they had a requirement. So it became almost like, have you now or ever been a member of the Communist Party? You know, you guys say, have you now or ever had empathy for someone? And I think that the real problem is, is, it's the definition how you're laughing, it's funny is it's where it's def that's why it's so important to have the definition down, because we're talking about different things. You know, he's talking probably thinks it's like sympathy, feeling sorry for people and and we're looking at something different. So
I've been talking about a congressional briefing, and that's where you would bring it. And I've been talking about a congressional briefing on peace, or peace building or conflict resolution, which is what you know, what is actually being requested or preferred by congressional staffers, but if legislative directors, but if you could do a congressional briefing on conflict and empathy, or congressional briefing on empathy and whatever conflict so empathic conflict resolution, or empathic conflict as opportunity.
I'm trying to set the stage, yeah, for I'm trying to set the stage of what. What the problem is, and the problem is, is there's real confusion. And it even goes more that there's all these books coming out now. There's the against empathy book that's been out a while. You know, it's just leading the confusion. There's suicidal empathy and toxic empathy. These are suicidal and toxic empathy. Or to the more recent books, and it there's even more. There's just the sin of empathy just came out. So it's, you know, a right wing evangelical who's written this, and they get a lot of views. So it's like, and there's a dark side that's dark side of empathy is an older one. I did interview the author of that one, but the others they, you know, I the sin of empathy. I tried to, you know, ask Joe Wrigley a couple years ago, when he was writing, he was writing articles about this, and now he turned it into a book that just came out, and I asked him to do. He wouldn't talk to me. Just refused. And the same with suicidal against empathy. I had an email exchange with Paul Bloom, but he wouldn't talk on, on, you know, on camera. And suicidal, God said I, God said I did in I asked him for an interview, and he did respond. Said he didn't have time or he didn't want to, and I've tried to, I've posted to the toxic empathy person I just posted, I sent her a message to her website, and on her Facebook page, said I'd like to do an interview, and haven't heard anything, but they get a lot in the suicidal empathy. There's just something from just Joe Rogan, you know, Elon Musk was interviewed on Joe Rogan, and he referenced suicidal empathy. And, you know, and so anyway, it's just causing a heck a lot of confusion.
So how about a series of empathy circles with every one of these books, including France de Waals, the age of empathy? If that's the best book on empathy, and I think it'd
be good. I think before, I want to get the this, you know, this framework down. So we can map onto the the framework, so we can see how each of the points that they make, how they fit within the holistic empathy model, you know, so we can go systematically to address the criticisms, because that's what the goal is, right? And not only do, and I'd love to have book, you know, clubs too, so we could look at the books and go in depth. I want to be sure that we get, you know, get some material out of it, you know, educational material. It's
also to relate empathically with the chapters of empathy.
That's it. That's I told him. I said. I told Paul Bloom, he came out with his first article in The New Yorker, and I emailed him. I said, Paul, I'd like to empathize with you about your criticisms of empathy. And that's the same thing I'm saying to these people. I want to I don't say you're wrong. You're full of shit or something. I say, I want to empathize with you. And they say, well, we don't want to talk to you.
Crazy. So we got that confusion, like people in general misunderstanding. But there's also another problem, that there's both, there's academic, you know, definitions of empathy, and they're, they're problematic too, is that they're not easy to understand. You know, they are obviously, you can see that, that they're not, obviously not clear to many people. So we have the academic definitions and just all the confusion, like of all these books and so forth, show, I think that the definitions, the academic definition is, has problems, and that those definitions can be rather abstract and rather academic, and the main definition you'll see out there is what they call affective and cognitive empathy. And even those terms are not very sexy, they're kind of dry, uninteresting terms. And so we need a clear, you know, some just make, trying to make the case that we need a clear and practical definition.
Yeah, I mean to me what. That's why I like to I've decided to work with words like wholeness and oneness, because I. The mind can always create an alternative, right? You can. And I think about this in very simple terms, I can always say yes, but I can always come up with some alternative idea around any term, any sentence, anything, because that's what the mind can do. And I think these book arise because the danger of empathy to become the number one culture means that Christians can no longer exclude people from their faith and say, well, they're non Christians, so we don't have to care about them, or, you know, master the lines between religion exist because we, you know, we have belief system that don't align. So the other people from the other belief system, they don't get my empathy
and boundaries. People want markers and boundaries, and they want to exclude. And if you're doing, if you're being empathic, you know you don't do,
yeah, yeah. If you're empathic, you you lose your boundaries. And when an empathy movement is rising up, then the Christians have to write books about bad empathy because they can't have this. They can't have a culture that includes everybody that's that's not Christian. One
thing, yeah, one thing I would want to say is that in terms of boundaries, so there might be, maybe that's something we can do, is have a whole series of terms, like love, boundaries, and then have, like, a whole Glossary of these, and then how do they map on to the to the definition and and I would say in terms and how they map on to the empathy circle, because the empathy circle has clear boundaries. And I think that, you know, conservatives, people who value boundaries, they would appreciate the empathy circle, because the boundary of, you know, one person speaks, one person listens. You know, there is a sort of an agreement and a boundary. There just, just also a note in eight minutes, Violetta, I think is going to show up. So we might want to, we might review, yeah, we'll probably stop this, and then kind of introduce her to when she does come and maybe review this again. So and just jump in if you have anything to say, anything else.
Well, I mean, Jenna, I like what you're doing, but I can't keep up with this.
What do you expect me? I'm just tasting from the Miriam start
up and read your stuff first. And because, like I, you know, it floods me. And while I'm listening to Edwin, okay,
I can stop. I share. It's a lot. Let's maybe focus. You have any comments about this here? We're trying to, we're trying to improve this slideshow. Basically, is the goal. Like this is our starting point. And, you know, we want to see we can do to improve this presentation. This will be sort of the kernel. We want to keep building and building.
Alright? No, I I like this slide. I think it's very important. The whole reason why this slide exists is, is very important that we, and I believe in simplification. We live in a time where complexity on one end is going to explode even more over the next just very few years. So we need to find a way to root people into something simple, simple that they can orient their life around. And I believe we have a chance with empathy to do that. And for that, I agree with this slide 100% it needs to be simple, needs to be very clear and practical. And
practical, it's something that people can use. And I think that's what the empathy circle does. Is going to have a definition, and it's going to be something go do it with your family. Go do it right way. It's practical. You can use it. It's not going to be a bunch of abstract kind of stuff,
listening to it, empathic listening. Then you know what we're talking about, or reflective listening, or active listening. Then that's, that's what we're actually doing. That's the doing part.
So put in something about the listening component.
Possibly if that's what we're doing. I found it interesting that in the definition that there was a discussion of compassion, and the compassion is an older word than than empathy, and I felt uncomfortable with the word love, you mentioned earlier, so I've never used the word love. Okay? Now. I'm applying for this love thing, so, but when I read Love 2.0 then I don't have a problem with love anymore. That's like, oh, is that's what it is. It's basically what we're doing all the time, like in empathy circles. So, you know, I've used kindness instead of compassion, that kindness will lead to compassion and honesty will lead to wisdom. Wisdom is another heavy word, you know, profound and not clear to people. It needs to be defined and so empathy, kindness, empathy, I agree that these are kind of comfortable levels for people to engage with and not as I don't know, over committing, over overwhelming, you know? Yeah,
I mean, there's a certain aspect for me where, that's why I said in the beginning, empathy. This word is working right now. And I say this because in the process, we do, even in the empathy circle, we're tapping into something that's not in the words, it's that's bigger than the words. The words help us to get there and and so like, if I say, if I would say, let's do a love circle, people would completely misunderstand what I mean and would be unclear or even a compassionate circle, yes,
or do we take a close off? Yeah,
exactly so empathy, and that's also the power of this non defined aspect of empathy, the open space. This word allows, right? So that, I guess that's partly why I don't like to say empathy is like love is like compassion. It's like this. No, no, no, let's these. They all have their own definitions. This, the empathy. Empathetic field is a little more open and has is more spatial, and we need to not tie it down, but define that space in a simple way that that that makes sense to me.
Can I offer something? Yeah, go, just jump in.
Did I reflect first? So, so when she talks about micro moments, when Frederickson talks about micro moments of positivity resonance, and that's how she defines love. So would an a definition of empathy be like micro dosing, or micro moments of empathic experience or empathic connection, or empathic understanding, or empathic respect. I don't know. I'm just throwing some words out,
yes, a lot of different feelings that come up in an empathy circle. It's kind of the full spectrum of human experience comes up.
I guess you have a some problem. You can't use the same word in the definition as the word itself, the defendant. Yeah, the thing you're defining, so if you say that empathy is, you know, micro dosing, human connection or human relating?
Well, that's where that Glossary of words and mapping it onto empathy might come in handy, because it's the same problem with empathy. Lot of different definitions, confusion, I think of every other word too, compassion has the same issue, love, you know, kindness, it, it they there's one academic he talks about, there's all these different definitions of like, empathy, and all you can do is articulate what your definition is and stick to it and then Say, and that's kind of what I'm doing here. Is here, this is my definition, holistic empathy. I know there's a lot of other definitions people would maybe disagree with this, but this is what I'm meaning by it, just to have that clarity, and hopefully, you know, since I've looked at this, a lot a lot of other people might say, Yeah, that's a good definition. This is functional. This is practical. I'll adopt this language, or at least I'll know how to map what you're saying over to my view of empathy.
Here's the letter I mean,
micro dosing. Talk about micro dosing. Reflective listening is the microdose of empathy every time you do it
is microdosing. What with reflective
empathy? With reflective listening? Every time you do reflective listening, this is an action of empathetic you know when. You say micro dosing. Love a reflective listening is maybe it's not a micro dose. Maybe it's a micro dose. It's a dose of empathy. When you reflective listen to somebody, hi, hello,
everyone. I'm not quite sure what I'm joining. At the moment, Edwin invited me to,
yeah, yeah. Sorry, yeah. This is our discussion about the definition of empathy. So I was just, I was just muted here. So I we had said I had sent you the wrong time at 10. We did start. The three of us started an hour earlier, but, you know, we just continued together. So I'm sorry about that, because you didn't actually had the right time. I told you the wrong time, and at 10. So anyway, so maybe we can just introduce each other ourselves. I think you know, Jana, we were, we were in the circle together. We actually had a previous discussion, you know, empathy, you know, definition project, and, and, Daniel, do you want to introduce yourself?
Yeah, hi, I'm, I'm, I'm sitting in the sunset in San Francisco in our three generation house, I live with my wife and my daughter and son in law and our three grandkids in one house, and that was very much a move in our life that was very deliberate And and does have a big part of empathetic connection to that young family they needed help during COVID and so on. But even now, it's just wonderful to be in this one household, and that's really one of the core things in my life now. And I'm a musician, I'm a drummer. I do a lot of spontaneous free music making with all kinds of people, old people, retirement homes, memory care units, parties, groups of people, kids. I'm also, for four decades, a breath work instructor, and I've done hundreds, maybe 1000s of sessions, lost count, and I'm very excited about what I feel here is emerging Ingrid, my wife got me into the empathy circle and introduced me to Edwin, and I feel like we have a chance here. It's very exciting.
Ingrid and Daniel came down to Santa Barbara, and, you know, multiple times for the trainings there, and he became empathy circle facilitator training. And Ingrid, his wife, is also on the board of the empathy center. So he's been okay. They've been very involved. You want to introduce yourself? Violetta, sure.
I'm in a very busy period of my life. My accent is coming from Bulgaria, but I'm calling talking to you from Illinois, from the center of this of the Midwest, in central Illinois. I'm a psychologist currently in my postdoc. Mostly my work is related to assessment of empathy. I do a lot of autism assessments, all kinds of psychological assessments you could think of. I do a little bit of therapy. My interests with my dissertation and master masters and then post dissertation research has always been empathy. So with Edwin, I met, I don't know how many years ago, I joined, at some point and then life is crazy busy right now, so I unfortunately didn't have the time capacity to join a lot more. One day, things will fall down. I think, I hope that's what I hear. But right now, that's not where I am. I've researched empathy from a phenomenological point of view. I'm very interested in philosophy. I've researched it in two cultures, my culture in Eastern Europe and US, and have done some of that exploration. What, what does empathy look like in I'm more collectivistic and more individualistic culture, and I'm passionate about that type of exploration into empathy. What is empathy and how can we create a culture of empathy? And why do we create a culture of empathy? Sorry to Roger. It, yeah, yeah. And
that's it, yeah. We're totally, very aligned. We've talked a lot, I think, you know, Rogers was coming from a phenomenological point of view. I think so, yeah, it's too bad you don't have more time. It's this wonderful person to, you know, connect with and have really excellent sort of background in this topic. So what I'm trying to do is we did the empathy definition project way back when. Then I got into the empathy Center in Santa Barbara, and that kind of is blown up. So I'm coming back to the definition is like a starting point to create material, to just really create a clear definition of empathy, at least how I'm seeing it so and I'm calling it the holistic. Did you have a chance to see the slideshow? Yes, maybe we can discuss that a little bit, because that's sort of the starting point. Now. We're just going through it just now, kind of step by step. Because what I want to do is, that's sort of our starting point. We've got a presentation and, you know, kind of building on that, and I want to turn it into maybe some articles, expand the slideshow you know, present it in different places, you know, refine it, and then also maybe even make a book, you know, out of it, you know, defining empathy book. You know, Susan Lanzoni, who did the the history of empathy book, I she told me that she's actually putting together a proposal for a book on definitions. I've been trying to get together to meet with her. She and she was, uh, chopping her proposal around for her book. So I'm going to see if there's any way of collaborating with her. And she hers. I think she's kind of coming from the Rogerian definition of empathy. So which is kind of what we're kind of building building on, you know? So anyways, and then on Tuesdays, I'm meeting with Jody Jensen, who's another, also a PhD student, and she's at Brigham Young University, and we're kind of working on this too. So I'm setting up two dates to of the week to, you know, get a group together that wants to kind of work work on this project. So just curious what your thoughts are, you know, on the presentation and so forth. Maybe we just have some discussions. I don't know how you have. How much time do you have
talking to me? Edwin, yeah, I've set a set aside this hour, because that's what was, what my thought was. As I mentioned in our exchange messages, I probably wouldn't be able to commit to a two hour meeting weekly, but I just wanted to touch base today. Yeah, that's that was what we were thinking. Are you asking me to talk about the
model, or what you think? Is it model, or any other things you are to talk about catching up you sounds like you've expanded. You're doing a lot of the therapy. Sounds like you've gotten into other work too.
Oh yeah, I'm doing very little psychotherapy at the moment. I'm doing more psychological assessment, so testing autism assessment mostly children, but sometimes adults as well. So kind of exploring the more deficient sides of empathetic functioning. But the imaginative empathy, as you know, is where my passion is the most in the model you've gone for this. And if you remember, when we talked about imaginative empathy, kind of in the framework of phenomenology, we talked about two versions of it. Do you remember that one? Right? Yeah. So if we, if we stay faithful to phenomenology, imaginative empathy is really the only way to know, and that's to know the other to understand I Jenna, to understand what's really happening that that type of, what you call basic empathy. So when we That's my major comment, probably, about the holistic empathy, the imaginative empathy, the way it is in the model at the moment, to me, is superfluous. I'm not quite sure what the benefits of that type of empathy are to kind of take on roles, if not to help us inform, to inform our our minds, but also our bodies, how to perceive another human in an accurate and I. Non judgmental way loving kindness, or, as Rogers put it differently, but I think it's kind of the same approach to human beings. So that's, that's how I see imaginative empathy, as being more the only way to know. In other words, the basic empathy is hinged upon imaginative empathy, and we the only way to know. The other is to kind of if imagination is waking up those parts of us that would have been awake when we experience something similar to what the speaker is talking about, then that's the basis on which we would be able to understand the other. If we stay with phenomenology. That's, that's the way to know another at all that inter subjective space. And I think that's, that's where I see imaginative empathy, and that's where I see basic empathy as well. So that's, that's my only comment on it. I wonder if imaginative empathy is, could be either just assumed in the basic empathy or explained that in the way you present, imagine if empathy, in the holistic model, is more an approach to train empathy. In my research theater has proven to be one of the best ways to train people to be empathetic. So one reason for that is because it allows our bodies to experience, to imagine, as Meryl Streep's quote, is to kind of have that smell of what the other person feels. Maybe music is another way as well, to synchronize. The rhythm synchronizes human beings and allows, literally, our hearts to beat together, our brains ways to synchronize. So that's that's my comment on the imaginative empathy, if either it could be explained as the best approach to train people to be empathetic, or and maybe as the the core epistemology, the core knowing path to knowing the other in this inter subjective space, via this kind of imagination.
So if we're in an empathy circle, I say we're in an empathy circle now, and I'm listening to you, and I'm reflecting back, so right? So what I'm hearing is you're saying that is imaginative empathy. Is basically the core of that base of basic is the core of basic empathy. That when you're doing basic empathy, when I'm reflecting back what you're saying, now I'm imagining what you're saying, and that imagine, and then I'm reflecting it back, so that that imaginative empathy is is already there in me,
if you allow me to upgrade that just a wee bit, okay, I think the definition of imagination is, is crucial. I think one, one way to imagine imagination, to speak of imagination this kind of more cerebral. I'm just going to have pictures or words in my mind, but my suggestion, and the phenological suggestion of imagination, is that it's a very felt experience that I'm literally experiencing in on a smaller scale, whatever the actor is experiencing, whatever the person that's speaking is experiencing, and that's that's something we've talked about a lot, that there's no real clear cut line. This is cognitive, and this is affect, right? And including kind of what feels like a more abstract concepts, like what we're doing at the moment, this is still me trying to understand, to get into, or you're trying to get into my framework, and what would it feel like to be Billy or Violetta and just this kind of, most people call me Billy, but this to be in this kind of place and understand, and I'm pretty sure that's how Rogers believed, saw empathy, and that's how the phenomenologically we're seeing that this kind of what we theoretically or traditionally, historically call higher cognitive functions and lower emotions actually this kind of one hole, and what matters more is what Is the goal? Who is my my addressee in this
so what I'm carrying there is that the imaginative is, is an effective it's a feeling. There's a feeling component, too. It's not just some abstract there's a feeling component. You can't make that that cognitive affective. Of difference it there. So when I'm imagining you, I'm also feeling, there's a feeling quality to it.
Maybe what I'm saying is what, what attracted me to this whole project is this transcending of this strict definition. So this is cognitive, this is knowledge, this is feeling. This is an object. I'm sorry. Daniel, yeah, I,
I earlier, I shared for me, empathy is directional. It's, it's, it's, it has emotion to it, and it always points to the center whatever, center of values, center of body, center of anything, it's and so it, in a way, it doesn't matter what your access point is. If you start cognitively, you end up, after a while in your feelings. If you start with feelings, you end up understanding more about it. If you start with both of it, you expanding your scope. So that kind of plays into something that I feel bill in my head, saying, let's not define it too much, because it's actually almost like it captures a part of our mind, even our human collective mind, in that Not super defined space that allows for us to gather around it in a way and then let that directional energy of empathy guide us into bigger and bigger understanding of it of itself. But what I noticed in the empathy circle for sure, is, is I want to call a change of state. You know this state consciousness, you have various levels of states available to you. And when you do an empathy circle, you enter in the somewhat, maybe everybody is motivated and we're all together, and we excited to be together, but after an hour and a half of sharing with each other, we have changed our state. We're on a on a much deeper, actual connected feeling with each other, and a sense felt, a felt sense of being connected with each other. And that's accomplished through some people sharing very cognitively from whatever, on the very intellectual level. And then other people talk about their food, and yet others talk about, I don't know, some difficult emotion they're going through. And the empathy is the directional container that allows us to drop into that felt sense deeper and deeper and deeper. And I think that's even true for the larger movement, that it's not just in the circle or in whatever setting you go in after empathy, but for the overall worldwide movement that felt sense of being empathetically connected, I believe is getting stronger. I have to believe that.
Are we sure? Right? That's all I can say.
Your your definition with I'm trying. Okay, here's the thing I want to Violetta is, you know, you're talking about phenomenological and this is a talk by Dan zahavi, who is, like, big phenomenologist. So he's actually he and I downloaded his full, you know, video so you can see it, it there. But he's actually calling direct empathy. What I'm saying is direct, and I don't have a better word for it. I could even just say empathy is what Rogers would just call empathy. You know, I'm just trying to differentiate direct empathy from imaginative empathy, and so I'm not happy with that word, basic or direct empathy, but something I still want to look at. But he's saying that that is what empathy is. So when I'm here with you and I'm listening to you and sensing into your experience, that that is what empathy is, he would he actually says that imaginative empathy, he doesn't even see that as empathy. He doesn't see and he goes through and he talks about the definitions, you know, affective empathy. He says, That's not empathy. He talks about cognitive empathy. And I think he sort of, he sort of dismisses that too, and the imaginative aspect of cognitive empathy that I'm imagining like an actor, he's. He's ruling that out. So for him, at least in that I see, in that, I don't know if you've seen that, have you seen that video of him, his
talk topic of
maybe some time ago, I think when we were working the first kind of iteration of the Define empathy project, I think, I
think it's a newer one, and it was behind the pay wall, so I went and got it and downloaded it. Okay, so, but it's a pretty it, yeah, so I thought that was, yeah, yeah. If you watch that one, you'll get a, I mean, he's like, I don't know. He's like, Mr. Phenomenologist, right, but philosopher, right? We're going to the sorry. So I'm confused with your imaginative empathy in his because you're saying that imaginative empathy is core to this basic, direct empathy, and he's making the differentiation like I am. I'm saying it is a form of empathy, and I agree with you that it has emotional qualities to it. But he's like saying, No, that's not empathy. He's calling only this direct basic empathy. What Rogers would call empathy, is empathy. So I don't know. I'm a little confused, like What the
I think that the difference is how we define imagination. That's the way he defines Imagination is more along the lines of listening to a story or watching a book. What he what he calls direct, is another word to use for imagination. This kind of what I was talking about, this very felt experience that could have all the pieces to it. Could have emotion, could have a an understanding, could have a value, could have a goal, but it's always has a directionality to it, or attentiveness, as they call it. So it's really how we define imagination. And I'm, I would agree with him that if imagination is only I'm just picturing, let's say, a fictional character, then that's not what I would talk about in terms of knowing the other. But in imagination, we could also practice, and again, theory is a good way to practice that instead of just talking, but also embodying, I don't know Hamlet. Instead of just imagining, oh, I'm Hamlet, what would Hamlet feel? I don't know, just in
the model. I mean, in model, I'm saying, Okay, we're all taking roles here, like, I'm Hamlet, you're, you know, Margaret Thatcher. So we're taking roles, you would consider, and then we're having, we're having two levels of empathy, right, where we're imagining these characters and role playing them, and then we're having an empathic dialog between them using active listening. For example, you can have sort of like two layers. So the imagination you would consider
not this version. I don't think so. I think it's a very good exercise to improve those muscles. But I don't know if it's empathy per se, and just to go to a little bit to Daniel's Point, I would very much like to stay in this kind of more fluid process. But I also love Edwin's idea of to make it a cultural and a personal value, and to start a movement where it's a clear communicated, clearly communicated thing, what is empathy and work for it? It's been weaponized, at least in the American political climate at the moment, unfortunately, not just at the moment. It has been for a while, but it's becoming more and more. Empathy is what liberals do, and conservatives don't like it. So it's which is, of course, complete nonsense, because all of us human beings do it, we have no other way to connect. So that's, I think, the it's a longer road of, how do we start from something that has so many nuances and with a clear message? Then have a good, I don't know, PR campaign to recruit people, use all the voices that could be supportive and find a way to bridge this polarization in a way that retains the ethical and the value based nature of of the empathy movement. Well, that's
what I'm trying to do with this definition, trying to get something that I feel comfortable with, that I and I've done it with conservatives, right? I mean, I sat down with conservatives, done an empathy circle, and they like it, and they appreciate it, then they go hug the liberal, right? So I know it works, if we can explain it to them, but it's like. If the existing definitions of empathy don't help, they actually confuse, you know, the affective, cognitive and, you know, all those discussions, they seem to just confuse the situation even more. So that's what this project is, is, can we simplify it? Yeah, I think Jan opened up so she was just first, you want to go ahead, she hasn't spoken. Jenna, you were about to say some,
well, just, I mean, you know, di is out the window, and you're suggesting empathy, but now empathy is out the window. So then there's the problem of attachment to the word, right? If active listening or reflective listening, probably nobody has any problem with because it's not love or kindness or compassion or empathy or anything toxic or sinful or anything so, you know, Ingrid was talking about renaming the facilitator training, which is a facilitator training, to something else. You know, because people are learning how to practice time ring and, you know, take turns and keeping this structure and so forth so similarly. But you know, I mean, you've been doing empathy Edwin for forever, so, yeah, you're very attached to empathy. But anyway, I'm just raising that as a you're
saying, simplify it even farther. Just use the word listening. Don't even use the word empathy anymore. And you think that would kind of resonate with people more.
It might. I mean, we have the international listening Association, right? All they do is listen. They don't do it anyway. They just listen. They don't know adjectives, you know, dialog and deliberation. They have no adjectives. If empathy is an adjective, empathy is a noun, I don't know. Maybe it's a verb. And then, from the Buddhist typology of mind, you know, I'm listening to this imaginative empathy. I know you talked about it before. I know you really love that fantasy, imaginative. You're not using the word fantasy anymore, using imaginative, which I think is a better word. But there's direct perception, and then there's conceptual, you know, and inference, inference is also a way of so these are different ways that we can know. So when we're talking about ways of knowing, you know, so in in the empathy listening practice, you know, you're using all these ways of knowing, you know, depending also on people's, you know, understanding, you know, sometimes they're conceptualizing anger, and sometimes they're, you know, you like to use the word Edwin and Daniel felt sense, right? So sometimes it's a direct experience, direct perception, of of of the unpleasant emotion or pleasant emotion, or whatever it is. And so, so we have all these things happening and inference as well, these ways of knowing.
Yeah, Daniel, you're just
a couple things. I, what I, what comes up for me with imaginative empathy is NVC that I remember in the training with Marshall that there was like you try to imagine where the other person is and what they say, and try to understand what they want to communicate. Now that's in situations where you may not have somebody who chair shares with you empathetically or so, but just it's in their state. So to imagine, try to find out in your imagination, where the other person is. I don't know if that's he
actually used the word imagine it's a little bit like what you're saying. I'm a little I'm a little skeptical about it. Still, it's like, I'm not seeing I'm the like when I'm listening to you directly, it seems to me that there's that directness and and there's more of a mirror neuron based, you know, direct sensing into and there's probably some kind of imaginative stuff happening, but it seems to be a little bit different that it's, It's sort of like a child, right when their baby, when it's first born, that it it senses into the world. It doesn't have a whole imaginative quality. And it's not until, like, a year and a half, 18 months, that they can start imagining the other as a separate being, and put themselves in that person's shoes in an imaginative sense. So there is a more basic knowing that's more fundamental, it seems to me, which is, I think, what Dan zahavi is talking about and so and so. Yeah, so you. Yeah, yeah. So I'm still, I haven't quite resolved. Yeah, Violetta, what your imaginative part with separating the imaginative and, and sort of the direct empathy, yeah,
yeah. I mean the felt sense and to sense somebody else's is not, in my experience, not something all people are naturally equipped with, especially if they've been through very difficult times, to sense into another person. May even be something where they say, I don't know if I want to do that, but I can imagine, I try to imagine where you at, and maybe it's just in the directional quality of empathy, a step along the road, becoming more and more empathetic, that as you go, you develop more and more the ability to just really be mirroring somebody else in that
map that. Sorry, can you map that into the empathy circle? Like, say we're in an empathy circle and just say what you're just saying in the context of the empathy circle? Yeah, okay, I do want to try to keep the definitions that we're talking about within the context of the empathy circle so we can point to it more clearly. So what I'm hearing, what I was hearing you say, Daniel, is, if I'm listening to you right now, and that you and that I don't know how to sort of feel, into your experience, I can imagine what you're thinking. I mean, what your experience is, is that sort of what you're saying that?
Yeah, I'm just saying that imaginative is, like you said belleta, that it's, it's hard to define. And so, you know, for people who, for a person like me, coming more from a gut feeling, imagine if empathy feels more disconnected, you know, feels a little bit more mental, yeah,
and that's the point that zahavi makes, is when you imagine there's less chance of being accurate, I think, in his presentation, Right? Because you're sort of referencing your own experience. And so there's a chance for you to be inaccurate into in terms of your empathic reflection, if we're doing it in the so it's, yeah, I'm still, I'm trying to work that out because, yeah,
no, I'm with you. I'm not. I haven't worked that out completely myself. The other thing is, I believe that these books are there to muddy the water of empathy. It's the whole purpose to Frizzle out that term and make it less usable. And there's one way would be to switch terms. Another way would be to to just take it on and take it on, head on. Say, Hey, no, no, don't mess with this word. You know. You know what I mean. And that allows a conversation that's very important, because if people just like with dei or so, there's conversations now constantly about, no, what you're referring to as dei is not Dei. You making it to something else that was not the purpose to begin with. And that discussion is important. It's not, I believe. You know, that's one of the problems I see with the Democrats. They like to disengage and say, Oh, fuck it. No, you gotta, you gotta. You gotta go in and face the music. You know, you set something up. Come on, go with it and follow it through all the way to the end. I feel that a little bit in my heart around empathy so you guys tried to mess with it. No, no, no. That's exactly my
position. But I want to be clear on what it is we're talking about. Have a clear understanding of it, have it mapped onto the empathy circle here. And I've reached out to all those book authors, you know, right? There's the books you know, Violetta, of you know, the there's the against empathy and that, you know of the old ones and then the dark side of empathy, or if you're that one, those are the two academic ones that have been around a couple years. Now. There's the newer ones, which is the sin of empathy and the toxic empathy and suicidal empathy. So and those three books or more from from the right wing, and it's like, and they have all kinds of views of suicidal empathy. Joe Rogan and Elon Musk just referenced it right? And they're getting, you know, 1015, 20 million views on that. So that's all those people. People have now been influenced by it, and we need to be able to, you know, have a response. And I reached out to each one of those people I've asked, you know, the I haven't heard, the the sin of empathy person, Joe Wrigley, you know, I reflect, you know, he didn't want to talk to me. You know, against empathy. Didn't want to talk to me, you know, the and the other, and also the suicidal empathy, so I don't want to talk to you, and then the toxic empathy. I haven't gotten a response. I've been sending messages, you know, to that author, so I'm right there. That's what I think we need to do, is be able to respond, but also if we can get those people into an empathy circle to experience it and and they actually have legitimate phenomenon that they're criticizing, that I actually agree with the phenomenon that they are criticizing, but it's not what I would consider empathy. So there's sort of that discussion. Yeah. Jenna, yeah.
You gotta reach out to Joe Rogan that if you want the 20 million views, into Tucker Carlson, if you want the 20 million views and Charlie Kirk, these are the people who are getting the views. So you want their views?
Yeah, I'd love to.
Well, I mean, let me also comment maybe,
maybe it's not worth sticking to the imaginative that much Edwin, if it's confusing. Really, there's a lot at stake. So just advocating for empathy is maybe, as Jan says, maybe not even empathy. How about just we see the other as a human being, and we're trying to understand what that other human being who is worth our time is actually saying whoever, whatever term would be used. I'm also more passionate about the result rather than the term itself, even though I do see myself as an empath, and probably will always be interested in empathy, per se. But if the imaginative is confusing, then again, for me, it's just one of the mechanisms in which all knowing happens. Therefore there's no empathy without the imagination. But if, if it, if it sticks as more of a cognitive phenomenon, then it's probably not very helpful. It's not leading anywhere, but my thoughts are going more towards you had one conversation, maybe two, with Zaki. Jamal Zaki, do you remember that I never talked to him. Oh, you did you? Did you have an interview with him? Not Jimmy,
old Zacky? I don't think so. You sure? I think you do.
See was long time ago.
He would never tie. He would never talk to me. I was just, was not impressed. Let's see,
babe, I just realized understood how you're using imagination. You're using imagination the way the Buddhist use mind, so that any any experience that's not physical is in the is in the mind.
Not sure what the Buddhists imply, but maybe
might want to look at it actually. Yeah,
I never talked to Zach. I tried to get him into an interview multiple times, and he just would never, yeah, I was just, I just, I guess I'm a little skeptical about Zaki, because that, because he wouldn't talk,
huh, when he talked about in favor of empathy. He started movement, and he's currently together with Adam Grant, Jonathan height, and a couple of other social psychologists, which I'm not a social psychologist, and I find social psychology sometimes kind of crudifying make or simplifying, maybe sometimes with a good idea some more complex phenomena. But they're starting this kind of dialog on they started on campuses, but I think they're trying to make it more of a movement. Okay, thank you, Jenna, which I think is worth especially if, if the empathy culture continues to grow and you're working on it, maybe to reach out to to them again, they're trying to cross the the or bridge, rather the divide, and trying to do it via empathy, basically. Now jail went Zaki went into hope, saying that we can't really continue hit his last book is hope for the cynics, and he's saying we can't really do empathy without the. Uh, hoping during COVID, he was advocating for instead of self care, for other care. And he talked a lot about empathy, actually being the way out of depression and isolation, instead of kind of staring at your belly button seeing how, what can I do for me? Rather? How can I see the other and then make choices after I understand how the other is doing and kind of unlocking that potential? So it might be worth reaching out to him again.
Try again. Yeah,
yeah. I was so sure you talked to him. That's so
strange. I tried multiple times, and he just always kind of blew me off. I just was didn't respond at all. He would say, No, I don't have time, or stuff like that. You know, he'd just be vague. And I don't know, I that's for sure, maybe a little bit skeptical about him, just he wasn't willing to dialog, and
I don't know, maybe he he's still pretty young. Maybe he was still insecure. Now he's quite the name in empathy and in the social movement of that. So the thing there's a lot of overlap.
Daniel Zaki, I'll give you the link I have.
And he he also has quite the foothold now in in DC, more so with the previous administration, but they're trying to be active. I mean, nobody really knows what's happening at the moment in Washington, DC, but whatever, whatever it is they're trying to stay, remain valid. I think he and height started the constructive dialog Institute, where they were trying to teach students on campuses. They started with Palestinian and Jewish students and trying to teach them how to talk to one another, and maybe they continued into Republican Democrats.
I wasn't aware that they were doing that. I
one thing I think I had, they seem to be a little kind of elitist, was my experience, just to it's like, oh, you know, you're not in the academic world, you're not in Berkeley, you're not in Stanford. You know, it's like, you're not relevant somehow. So that's it seemed to be kind of an elitist they've been going on and on, and they haven't been very successful either, in terms of what they've actually, you know, I don't know I tried. I'm gonna, I always try again, you know. Okay,
okay, I was sure I was misremembering.
There's a lot of others, you know, people I did have interviews with and connect with and stuff, but never it was just, I don't know what it was, just very odd to me that. And he even talked about him being, seeing himself as an asshole at one point, he's a reform. He's always cynical. Even talked about that period of his life that he was and he also talked about himself in those terms. And maybe I was just at that point in his life where
could be he's caught him in the asshole stage. Yeah,
maybe he's reformed as a they would be interested. Like, I try to reach out to everyone. I mean, I try to read, you know, it's like, whoever they are, if they're interested in empathy, I reach out. Let's have a dialog. Let's talk, let's connect, let's see we can do but there's that Berkeley Stanford community that's very elitist I find so, yeah,
that's not serving anyone because we're all whole culture is going down the drain when we're playing in in our own corner. Yeah,
I think that's led, it's led to what's happening in the Mm, hmm, yeah. Led to this situation, yeah, and we even got an article in Scientific America. I don't you see that? Yeah, who does that? There was an article in Scientific America. They almost like featured our work. Oh, no, I haven't, yeah, let me see if I can find that.
Edwin, I know I'm going to have to jump out and
I think this goes all on the direction of the. What you're trying to do here with the definition project is to to make it simple, to to bring it to a point where, where we can help to dissolve the confusion. Because I I just you, my line of thinking is, is like a cooperative, empathic culture at some point is going to gain momentum, and it has to, because that's in my understanding, what most people are looking for. And it becomes pretty irresistible if we actually make it happen. And I see all these attempts, including the ivory towers of academia, as sort of, like, almost, almost like an reactive avoidance to the power of this. Yeah, we want to do this, but not really, because it's, I mean, it has life changing character, it has world changing character, and so I don't know that's just my take.
MY CONVERSATION WITH Edwin is longer. We've talked about it multiple times, but when we talk about definition of not something you can touch, right? So it is, it is an academic endeavor, just like a surgery requires a surgeon. Definition For concept, I believe, requires somebody who's trained their mind. So I, I that's what I think when we talk about definition, it's a good idea to shake hands with somebody, and Zaki would be a good option, because he's defining empathy pretty much a similar vein, at least, at least last time I read him, which was admittedly more than five years ago, we know very similar fashion to how the empathy circles define empathy? I don't Edwin, and I've shared that thought with you. I don't think we can arrive at a clear, easy to communicate definition, all clean, clear things have come after a lot of hard, confusing work. So clarity is usually the fruit of a lot of a lot of confusion for a long time. So it's not it's not very it's not a simple thing to create a simple definition. And I think partnering with somebody academic who is not in an average hour, but who is trained and has, okay. Where is the research for that? How do we know would be paramount for defining empathy? Well, I don't think we can define empathy as this phenomenon between human beings that could change the world in the frame of an empathy circle. Because what you call the framework of the empathy circle is behavioral exchanges. Somebody says something, somebody imagines something. So you're you're trying to kind of script out exchanges and what is happening within one mind and then within two between two people in this inter subjective space. And I think it could happen at the end of a longer path, so longer stories. I think if we stay with the Rogers definition, not missing the the self. So when he talks about in 51 when he talks when talks about empathy, is this ability to, yeah, hope for cynics, is this ability to perceive the other as if I'm the other person, but without losing the as if condition? So there that's enough to say, Okay, we've talked about there is a self. I'm separate from the other self. So in terms of definitions, either we stay with the with the classics, or we go with the more, more established people that are already doing something, and use this platform of practicing empathy circles as a way to introduce various exercises to improve that ability that we call empathy, because I believe it's an ability.
I'm going with Rogers work as the foundation. So that said, the academics have gone off into, I think they've, you know, they've got affective empathy, which you don't even know what the heck they're talking about. It's like how your response is to what it is that you're empathizing with. I mean, there's, I mean, there's a whole bunch of different academics are in different ways. They're all over the place, yeah, and the same thing with even the cognitive so that's why we're. To have it tied in with something, you know, practical, because the empathy circle is something that's practical. I can bring in any of those conservatives into an empathy circle. We can, you know, do the empathy circle. I can say, this is what empathy is, and hey. And then they'll say, Hey, this is pretty good. I'm hearing they act the Conservatives are pissed off because the Liberals won't listen to them. And here's a point where, and that's one of their big criticisms about empathy. It's just a con game to for them not to be heard, though they can actually experience it. And I find it when conservatives come into into the empathy circle, they're like, Hey, this is pretty good. So I see totally about being able to convert that in terms of condition.
I think it's a tool, but I don't think it's it's going to be a good milieu in this kind of environment to define. So I think the definition should come from somewhere else that's been simplified. After all the all the hard work has been done. We can explain how it plays out in the empathy circle. And the empathy circle is an amazing, very cheap, very easy to scale up, very quick to learn and multiply approach to how how empathy changes changes the culture.
Yeah, well, your first point about academics, I don't have anything against academics. I appreciate the deep research. Somebody who's studied the whole field of the literature is trying to integrate it and, you know, come up with some kind of clarity. I appreciate that. And I'm, you know, on Tuesdays, I meet with uh, Jody Jensen, who's working on her PhD, you know, on empathy and, and she's, you know, and she's older, so she's not, she has her own ideas. She's coming into academia, you know, studying empathy, but also seeing other points of view. So she's not, like, totally into the individualistic psychology sort of mindset. So I really appreciate that, but I also see that the academia has has become elitist in a lot of cases, and they don't. It's like they're in their own bubble, in their own world, and not everybody you know, like Dan, not Dan, but Dan. Batson, maybe that's who you're thinking about, who I interviewed a couple times, and he's open. He was like, let's have a dialog. His point is, there's all these definitions, you know, say what your definition is, be clear on it, and then stick to it, and then just put it out there. And, you know, you can't tell everybody to, you know, accept your definition, but this is how I'm defining it, and how does what you're saying kind of relate to that? So that's kind of what I'm coming you know, point I'm coming from. So I don't have nothing against academic mindset, except that it's things like, against empathy. I mean, here it is Yale University, you know, supposed to be a top university, and they just muddy the water. He didn't like clearly create, you know, a def definitions. It's like, you can just see the ego part of it's like, let's stir things up, I'll get attention, kind of, it's, it's Paul Bloom from, from Yale, you know, he wrote this book against empathy. And it's, you know, it's the same thing, what? Yeah, many years ago. And, you know, he won't die. He wouldn't. I mean, I tried for five years to have just like I said, Let's do an empathy circle, you know, with him. And he wouldn't, you know, he just refused, you know, to
he doesn't even believe it needs to be defined at all. I've watched several talks and people like, Okay, what do you mean when you're against empathy? What are you against? What? Oh, we, we all know what it is. No, we don't. Yeah.
Well, he, yeah, his definition is, it's actual, it's actual emotional contagion. It's like, you take on the other persons. And I like, I would say, and, yeah. So anyway, you know, it's like trying to clarify those, those things and,
and it's great. I just, I just think, whatever clarification I think you are pretty much rooted in Rogers. I think defining empathy is best when it's simple. And Rogers is a very well thought out and he, he's kind of a fruit of a longer tradition than he didn't create most of the things he wrote about. So he, he was very insightful, brilliant man, but there's a lot, a lot of shoulders he stepped on. Yeah,
everybody steps on, everybody else's should build. So, yeah, sure, yeah, exactly.
But kind of as the culture of empathy, especially in a very mean, it's an actual act of resistance. And. Um, it's this idea of, it's becoming more of the revolution of human beings matter, and all human beings matter, not just the ones that are privileged. And yeah, and we are all be, we're all going to be under privileged at some point. So this idea that we're only able to connect when we feel safe in ourselves and we're not competing with the other. We're not playing the zero sum game. So that's, that's what I think would be kind of the core. Again, I'm just checking that I have only five minutes, but yeah, just
I wanted to add one thing in terms of, I just see the the empathy circle is the is sort of a core component of the definition to be mapping on so people can take part in it. And I see, I know you're skeptical about that, and that's what I'm trying to understand, is your skepticism. Because I think that's what made Rogers so effective is he did active listening, developed the process, and he talked about it. So he would do the phenomenon, and then he would talk about the phenomenon, and it made it very tangible, very accessible. And we're just expanding that to make it an empathy circle. And then we have the phenomenon that we can describe, the phenomenon people can experience, the phenomenon of of empathy. We can say, well, this is the this is where we see empathy in this, and you can experience it. And we can also show when you can experience like, like, if you're coming at me, Violetta, you're totally angry, and then I get totally angry, and I can say, well, that's you can see how it blocks the empathy. Like, I'm no longer being present with you. I'm getting all wrapped up in my own anger. And so we can, somebody can experience, you know what, what Paul Bloom is talking about, you can see that that actually is a block to empathy. So anyway, I just see that the circle itself is, is something that's very unique in terms of the of grounding the definitions. I'm I don't quite understand your skepticism about the definition,
absolutely mapping out the definition, but I don't think a series of exchanges or visualizations would be defining it, that it would be a pedagogical tool, a tool to teach empathy, a tool to explain empathy, but the definition is still rooted in Rogers. So you are using the Rogerian definition for some reason. Yet you're not. You're not using my favorite one of the as if condition. But whichever one, it's still, it's still him. I'm
all for as if I understand, yeah, yeah.
It's, I think when we say we're defining something, we we're we're talking about what thing is and not how it plays out. How it plays out, could help us understand what a thing is. Does that make sense? Yeah,
okay, I'm for that. Yeah, yeah. So we do need the definition and then, like, here's how it plays out, but we still have our definition. Yeah? So, okay, yeah, we're on the same page there.
Yeah? I mean, this exchange kind of makes me think of that to begin with, empathy. Circles are open and completely inclusive, and that's how we look at empathy. But it seems to me, especially if you get turned down by authors that talk about that topic that that's not necessarily part of their definition of empathy that is inclusive. For me, maybe that's a key aspect of our definition that our way of empathetic connection to each other is that we open to anybody. It seems like to me when I hear some of the arguments and I listen to some of those, you know, YouTube videos against empathy, there's like this whole thing of it waters down your ability to exclude people, and therefore you shouldn't do it, because you need to exclude certain people. And we're into excluding certain people because if they don't behave right, they're not part of oft. And you know, we're, we're using empathy as an inclusive tool. For sure, I'm not sure if that's the case for everybody.
Awesome. It's definitely to document and great scenarios for that. I think the immigration issue, the Conservatives would bring that, that in. In and they but they would say, liberals empathize with the immigrants versus the people who are being affected by it. So, you know, the empathy circle is, well, bringing all the stakeholders together into the empathy circle and have a mutually empathic dialog, so that conservatives feel like they're part of the dialog, right? And what the solution is, you know, maybe the solution grows out of that, that discussion.
Bye, bye. Hi, Danielle,
I can tell you you gotta go. Me
most good. Yeah.
I just wanted to mention that the constructive dialog Institute actually uses something very similar to the empathy circle on the on their campuses. You might, you might want to look into that. And when I wonder if reaching out directly to them, they're a think tank, and I'm not quite sure where they're located, and really who is participating in it, but,
well, we reach out to everyone, but we're also trying to create our own organization, and then reach out and see how we can collaborate like it. And then there's like, how do you collaborate? Usually, we just try to say, hey, we have these tools. If you're interested in using them. We're here to support you. You know, that's and we've done that with like, the International listening Association and, you know, other organizations so but thanks for, you know, mentioning those. Do you only have so many hours in the day to reach out? Yeah, that's
a good organization. That's, yeah, okay,
so it's great. It's good to connect via letter again. I wish you had more time to be scaling this up, and we did record it and getting it all documented. And we're going to going through that slideshow to kind of build on the slideshow, or, you know, at our next empathy Summit. And then there's this, then there's another conference in Santa Cruz, the International what is it? Seventh international empathy conference, global conference. Yeah. So we're going to present there
does annual global empathy conferences. Yeah, you'd be a good person to present
in Santa Cruz, California. It's
in person and it's online. The AbsTract window is closed, but maybe you could still submit abstract if you wanted, is a lot of students and teachers and and parents and a whole bunch of other people who show up
and Edwin will present about the empathy.
I'm gonna talk about the definition. I'm kind of preparing the presentation for that very cool and the empathy circle, and they're doing an empathy circle, a two hour empathy circle, that we're gonna awesome, both online and in person.
Okay, very cool. I hope I will. I'm following pretty much everything Edwin is putting out, so hoping to keep jumping on different in different moments. Yeah, might be changing my job. We'll see what things are. But I don't expect to have a whole lot more time between having high schoolers and being in the demanding place in my career. But
and if you hold some family empathy circles, you can present at our empathy summit in August or November, or have we're doing
that. Sure what to what to present. I'm not doing a whole lot. I have all these things that are just sitting so I don't know if there's a lot that I
could we could do. We need some people talking about empathy circles in the family. So if you did some empathy circles in the family, you could report only like, 10 minutes or 15 minutes, like, Hey, here's the an empathy expert doing empathy circles in the family, and what your experience is. I think that would be really interesting teenagers, right? High schoolers? Yeah, perfect.
Interesting, for sure,
yeah. Give you the link to the
I think you're sharing pretty much everything on LinkedIn, and I'm following, yeah, that's Thank you. I don't know if I'll present, but I'm I will definitely try to jump on one or two. Yeah,
we want to start a series, two of empathy summits on building the empathy move. Movement. So get people to start talking about, how do we build a movement?
That's where my mind was today. Think for many of us, yeah,
we need, I mean, if you just see what's going on in the media, yeah, not a need for it. So I want to get that going. I gotta go. Okay, I gotta go too. So, okay, good, seeing you. Bye, chat. You.
