In deepest empathy
Look, this rubbish joke thing is going to go on until you tell me to stop. I will only desist if a majority of my readers say so, which means an e-petition comprising at least five names. Until then…….
I have a friend who suffers from a compulsion to purchase large white teddy bears. His doctor thinks he might have buy polar disorder.
Last night the Great Room was packed (as always) for a lecture by Simon Baron-Cohen on the subject of his new book ‘zero degrees of empathy’. This is what I took from Simon’s argument:
(a) we should see empathy as core to human nature and behaviour
(b) it is now possible to measure people’s empathy quotient quite accurately
(c) many types of psychiatric disorder and associated pathological behaviour can be traced to a lack of empathic capacity
(d) individual empathy levels are the consequence of a combination of genes and upbringing
(e) understanding and enhancing empathy is the key to tackling many psychiatric disorders and promoting a more humane and cooperative society.
As chair of the event, I felt ambivalent. On the one hand I absolutely accept the importance of empathy as a core human capability and also one which we need to grow in the 21st century. On the other hand, I was concerned that the issue of zero empathy in those with mental illness and of the overall levels of empathy in society are very different.
As I said last night, there is no reason to believe that Germans in the 1930s or Rwandan Hutus in 1994 behaved as they did because of their genes or individual upbringings (although the critical theorist Adorno did, I think, arguethat Germans had a distinct personality type which predisposed them to Nazism). Equally the sudden decline in hostility towards gay people in the 80s and 90s wasn’t down to individual factors.
While I think assessing and treating people with zero empathy is primarilly about understanding the individual factors which shape their personalities, the task of shifting the average empathy level of people in a society – and of widening the zone of empathy to include people different to ourselves – are much more matters of social and cultural change (and I’m not just saying this to defend myself from the allegation of neurological reductionism which Ray Tallis will be directing at me here at the RSA in a couple of weeks).
I asked one other slightly flippant question. Could it be that people with lower levels of empathy are more effective in relation to certain tasks and situations. I couldn’t resist recalling the episode of Star Trek (appropriately called ‘the enmy within’) in which, in a bizarre transporter accident, Captain Kirk gets divided into a gentle, empathic Kirk who is incapable of making decisions and providing leadership, and a brutal, sex-crazed Kirk who makes everyone follow his orders (I always remember this episode because it contains the immortal line, uttered by the Captain after the two Kirks are miraculously re-merged: ‘I’ve seen a part of myself no man should ever see’).
Then, by sheer coincidence, I find this morning that RSA Chairman, Luke Johnson, has made the subject of his FT column a discussion of whether entrepreneurs are – on the whole – slightly deranged. Luke doesn’t refer to empathy but some of the very successful people he describes were clearly pretty close to zero in their allocation.
Perhaps the answer is to create working groups of people with different amounts of empathy. The low empathy ones can make decisions and drive change and the high empathy ones can be in charge of communications and making sure that change processes don’t neglect the human dimension. What a great way to start a meeting: ‘welcome everyone, now before we all get down to business,l I wonder if you’d just fill in this empathy questionnaire …’
Comments
7 Comments on In deepest empathy
-
Liam Murray on
Wed, 15th Jun 2011 2:23 pm
-
Tessy Britton on
Wed, 15th Jun 2011 4:52 pm
-
Jeff Mowatt on
Wed, 15th Jun 2011 5:31 pm
-
Kristian on
Thu, 16th Jun 2011 9:08 am
-
Fiona Beddoes-Jones on
Thu, 16th Jun 2011 9:20 am
-
JamieC on
Thu, 16th Jun 2011 2:26 pm
-
Daniel V on
Fri, 17th Jun 2011 9:07 am
Quick thought occurs – surely empathy as a capability is morally neutral?
If empathy is an ability to read others well, pick up & respond to emotions and engender trust etc. then that ability can be put to malign or benign use. I’ve known people who are exceptionally empathetic (by that description above) but who would also attract the ‘manipulative’ tag; that is their skill is deployed in self-interest. Likewise people perhaps lacking in the skill somewhat but whose motives are better.
Granted we might choose broaden the definition of empathy to include not just the core skill but the benign application of it but it’s an important distinction that should be made.
Hi Matthew – might I please register one vote in favour of you stopping the jokes (of the required 5 I believe). #pleasemakeitstop
One aspect of empathy you haven’t mentioned is the biological aspect, which doesn’t necessarily relate or translate to either the expression of sympathy or compassion, but is the neurological reaction to stimulus though the mirror neurons. These fire more strongly when we have first-hand experience of the emotion or action we might be witnessing in others. So we literally feel what others are feeling just by watching them.
The research so far, as I understand it, indicates that where these neurons are not working as efficiently as usual, this leads to a poor understanding of others overall and difficulties with interpersonal relationships – as with autism for example.
I would suggest that a lack of empathy would lead to rather poor decision-making in relation most matters relating to, or working with, humans – but possibly quite effective decision-making in matters of business where humans are either not regarded or involved.
I’m reminded that this issue, absence of empathy, was explored in the 1970s BBC series by Jacob Bronowski where he considers scientific progress in the Heisengberg uncertainty principle and a monstrous counter conception.
He conclusion – “We have to close the distance between the push button order and the human act. We have to touch people.”
http://socialbusiness.socialgo.com/magazine/read/why-we-have-to-touch-people_4.html
Fascinating lecture. And your point about the difference between building empathic societies and treating sociopaths seems important.
It made me think of the literature on trust and social capital: if we view social capital as an individual resource (Bourdieu) you can make the argument that societies should attempt to combat the social inequalities (unequal capabilities) that arise from unequal distribution of social capital. Getting people engaged in civil society organizations is probably a good idea. On the other hand, when we look at social capital at the societal level (Putnam) the mechanisms are not necessarily the same. There is a debate over whether social capital (in the Putnam sense) is primarily a resource embedded in social and public institutions, or primarily a result of individual socialization in civic virtues by organizational participation. If social capital is institutionalized, then trustworthy public institutions, along with low levels of economic inequality and a highly visible civil society, are probably going to do more to increase social capital at the aggregate level than individual participation.
I think it might be the same with empathy; trying to increase the levels of empathy among those who have the least, will probably be a completely different game than trying to increase the average level of empathy in society overall. With the latter, we should probably be looking at institutions, discourses and the like. That’s why I’m afraid the clinical understanding of empathic individuals (however fascinating it may be) has relatively little to contribute to our understanding of empathic societies.
As a psychologist this is my favourite joke yet, so my vote is a please carry on, no matter how bad they may be in the future!
There are many ways of measuring empathy, from dropping a pencil close to someone to see if they bend to pick it up for you (watching their behaviour) to asking them to complete a self-report questionnaire (their perception) to asking others to complete a questionnaire with them in mind (others perception; 360 feedback)
Having worked in the area of cognitive style preference for 15 years, statistically, research has identified that there are essentially 3 kinds of people:
1. Task focused. At the very high end of the scale, and if this preference is not balanced by other traits, these people may well display anti-social personality disorder, obsessive-complusive disorder and/or narcissism, which would match Liam’s description of someone who appears to be empathetic, but is really only focused on their own selfish outcomes.
2. People focused. Again, at the very high end of the scale, this can be problematic, particularly in a business or in a leadership position. These people will always be empathatic and compassionate to the extent that sometimes the task at had simply doesn’t get done. These people excel in outward, customer-focused positions, but will never ‘drive through’ change, even if it’s necessary.
3. A balanced and flexible thinking style. These people are able to maintain their focus on the outcome, whilst still retaining their soft skills approach to managing and motivating people effectively.
The good news is that the focus on leadership is beginning to change. Employees and followers are now demanding ‘authentic’ leaders; those people who fall into category 3 and who are pro-social, self-aware and ethical whilst still being visionary and able to lead strategic change programmes in ways that take their people with them. After all, no-one likes change done to them, but everyone likes to feel involved and engaged. Authentic Leaders seem to be able to achieve that delicate balance.
The good news is that leadership excellence is developable and UK’s first Authentic Leadership and Business Ethics conference is being held in London in September, at which the new Authentic Leadership 360 is also being launched.
Apologies for the blatant advertising, but one of the things that I’ve learned from authentic leaders is that sometimes we have to speak out when we truly believe in something that can make a positive contribution to the lives of others.
It’s the courage to lead.
I think that the development of empathic capital is arguably the next step to the social capital project. Social capital provides ways of societies working together, but the development of empathy is crucial to moving beyond the immediacy of our environments to global prosocial behaviour.
I don’t think, as you say, that Germany or Rwanda was the site of empathically deficient gene pools. However, the cultural degradation of empathy as a valued skill and quality did facilitate the atrocities which subsequently occurred. I think it demonstrates that empathy is a fragile quality and one which needs to be sustained and developed within a society lest it be lost.
Empathic training and education are needed in order to give true impact to citizenship education – and this should stop being restricted to just school-aged young people, we could all do with a better level of citizenship skills.
I laughed out loud at the joke….but then I do find “What do you call a mushroom at a disco? A fungi” one of the most amusing and original jokes out there.
Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!
RSA Animate
RSA Mobile
RSA Comment- RSA Projects Blogs
RSA Bookshop
The RSA Bookshop, in partnership with Blackwell's the UK's leading academic bookseller, offers Fellows and friends an opportunity to purchase books and to explore our speakers’ ideas in greater detail. Visit the RSA Bookshop.