Trump - Alleged Poor Empathy

[sharon45]

So, it seems that your new point is not that people who are grieving don't want empathy, or that people have differing operational definitions of empathy, but rather that empathy is a meaningless term. Is that your final decision on the point you are trying to make in this thread, or should I expect further vacillation if I make any attempt to discuss this new point?

Well, your dictionary cite does make an assertion it can't possible back up. My understanding of empathy is our mere attempt to relate with someone else's feelings. Someone loses a dog and is crying over it, say, that I don't like dogs but I can still know what it is like to lose an animal I care about, a bird maybe, so I empathize, but I can't honestly know what this person is actually feeling.

I don't agree. I can certainly understand questions and answer them without having learned anything. It is having your questions answered that usually leads to learning. Also, if you had learned anything about this topic in this thread, you should be able to tell me what it is you have learned. Would you like to try to do that now?

Almost everything that I have written out here, I have learned from this thread, and I started learning with the very first post.

Well, I am glad you are not confused about what anyone else is saying in this thread. The problem seems to be that others, myself included, are confused by what you are saying in this thread, and you are the only one who can clear that up for us. A bit of consistency in the point you are trying to make would certainly go a long way toward resolving that confusion.

Of course, but I am obviously not a professional writer, and I have already seen here plenty of drawn out arguments of confusion between gifted enough writers as it is.

 

[ZiprHead]

[YOUTUBE]https://youtu.be/gqCO9osj1Rg[/YOUTUBE]

 

[KeepTalking]

Well, your dictionary cite does make an assertion it can't possible back up.

So, does that mean that empathy is a meaningless term, or that you have a slightly different take on what empathy means? It seems by your next statement, that it is the latter take. Fortunately, there are other dictionaries that present it in slightly different terms.

Merriam-Webster provides us with this slightly more in-depth take on empathy:
"the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner; also :the capacity for this"

My understanding of empathy is our mere attempt to relate with someone else's feelings.

Bingo. You got it in one. That is a perfectly acceptable definition of empathy.

so I empathize, but I can't honestly know what this person is actually feeling.

Using the Merriam-Webster definition, we can see that one does not need to know what the person is actually feeling in order to empathize. When you experience something vicariously, you often do so through substitution. You remember the feelings you went through in a similar situation, and can use those feelings to try to understand what someone else is going through.

Now, let's get back to the discussion that started this all. Donald Trump made no attempt to empathize with the soldier's wife when he called her. The re-wording of his statement that I provided in this thread said everything Trump said, in a very Trumpian manner, and added empathy (comporting with your definition of the word) into the statement. Do you agree? If you disagree, please show how Trump initially included empathy, by your definition, or my re-worded statement lacked empathy (also by your definition).

 

[Playball40]

Empathy and sympathy are NOT the same thing. However, trump lacks both.

 

[Elixir]

My understanding of empathy is our mere attempt to relate with someone else's feelings.

Bingo. You got it in one. That is a perfectly acceptable definition of empathy.

I disagree. Empathy (to me) is the direct, involuntary and automatic experience of someone else's feelings, not some wish or attempt to relate.
Trump is utterly devoid of that capacity, try though he might to relate to someone else's feelings.

 

[KeepTalking]

Bingo. You got it in one. That is a perfectly acceptable definition of empathy.

I disagree. Empathy (to me) is the direct, involuntary and automatic experience of someone else's feelings, not some wish or attempt to relate.
Trump is utterly devoid of that capacity, try though he might to relate to someone else's feelings.

I disagree with that, and would say that I agree more closely with Sharon's take on it. You cannot directly feel someone else's feelings, you can only feel your own. That is why I like Merriam-Webster's "experience vicariously", which can be done by substituting the emotions you had as a result of a similar experience with what you feel the other person is going through.

 

[Elixir]

I disagree. Empathy (to me) is the direct, involuntary and automatic experience of someone else's feelings, not some wish or attempt to relate.
Trump is utterly devoid of that capacity, try though he might to relate to someone else's feelings.

I disagree with that, and would say that I agree more closely with Sharon's take on it. You cannot directly feel someone else's feelings, you can only feel your own. That is why I like Merriam-Webster's "experience vicariously", which can be done by substituting the emotions you had as a result of a similar experience with what you feel the other person is going through.

Of course there's no way to verify the congruence of an empath's feelings with those of the person with whom (s)he is empathizing. Nonetheless, I think you're describing sympathy, not empathy. Empathy is involuntary.

 

[KeepTalking]

I disagree with that, and would say that I agree more closely with Sharon's take on it. You cannot directly feel someone else's feelings, you can only feel your own. That is why I like Merriam-Webster's "experience vicariously", which can be done by substituting the emotions you had as a result of a similar experience with what you feel the other person is going through.

Of course there's no way to verify the congruence of an empath's feelings with those of the person with whom (s)he is empathizing. Nonetheless, I think you're describing sympathy, not empathy. Empathy is involuntary.

I don't think whether it is voluntary, or involuntary, enters into the equation. I think both sympathy and empathy can be involuntary. For me, sympathy is more akin to compassion. The distinction I see is one of whether or not you can personally relate to the emotion in question. With sympathy, you can see that someone is being emotional, and you have a compassionate response to that outward display. With empathy, you are aware of why that person is displaying the emotion, and you are able to put yourself in that person's place because you have had similar feelings in a similar situation. Of course, I think this part of the discussion is rather academic, as empathy and sympathy are synonymous.

I agree with Playball40 when they contend that Trump lacks both.

 

[Elixir]

Of course there's no way to verify the congruence of an empath's feelings with those of the person with whom (s)he is empathizing. Nonetheless, I think you're describing sympathy, not empathy. Empathy is involuntary.

I don't think whether it is voluntary, or involuntary, enters into the equation. I think both sympathy and empathy can be involuntary. For me, sympathy is more akin to compassion. The distinction I see is one of whether or not you can personally relate to the emotion in question. With sympathy, you can see that someone is being emotional, and you have a compassionate response to that outward display. With empathy, you are aware of why that person is displaying the emotion, and you are able to put yourself in that person's place because you have had similar feelings in a similar situation. Of course, I think this part of the discussion is rather academic, as empathy and sympathy are synonymous.

I agree with Playball40 when they contend that Trump lacks both.

Agreed on 'most all points. Having experienced involuntary empathy, I am inclined to argue for its exclusive province under the definition, and deny that sympathy and empathy are synonymous. But as you say, that's academic when discussing someone who lacks both.

 

[sharon45]

So, does that mean that empathy is a meaningless term, or that you have a slightly different take on what empathy means? It seems by your next statement, that it is the latter take. Fortunately, there are other dictionaries that present it in slightly different terms.

Merriam-Webster provides us with this slightly more in-depth take on empathy:
"the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner; also :the capacity for this"

My understanding of empathy is our mere attempt to relate with someone else's feelings.

Bingo. You got it in one. That is a perfectly acceptable definition of empathy.

What I was saying near the beginning of this thread that got lost, is that people shouldn't be forced into this kind of situation. The president really has no business here except for being the detached boss, but he doesn't know these people involved. So, if he puts on a bad show, it's more expected, yet he shouldn't have to put on a good show either, because this insults both parties. The wife deserves something authentic, and it can't be in this example.

so I empathize, but I can't honestly know what this person is actually feeling.

Using the Merriam-Webster definition, we can see that one does not need to know what the person is actually feeling in order to empathize. When you experience something vicariously, you often do so through substitution. You remember the feelings you went through in a similar situation, and can use those feelings to try to understand what someone else is going through.

Right, and that is what I was also speaking about a lot higher up and just above.

Now, let's get back to the discussion that started this all. Donald Trump made no attempt to empathize with the soldier's wife when he called her. The re-wording of his statement that I provided in this thread said everything Trump said, in a very Trumpian manner, and added empathy (comporting with your definition of the word) into the statement. Do you agree? If you disagree, please show how Trump initially included empathy, by your definition, or my re-worded statement lacked empathy (also by your definition).

I never said that Trump had empathy here. I can't know what's in his heart, but I clearly don't trust him. Trump was more involved in a political obligation. And it doesn't matter whether this was given by Obama or Trump. I said that the wife deserved much better from people who actually knew and cared about her and/or her husband.

 

[bilby]

So, does that mean that empathy is a meaningless term, or that you have a slightly different take on what empathy means? It seems by your next statement, that it is the latter take. Fortunately, there are other dictionaries that present it in slightly different terms.

Merriam-Webster provides us with this slightly more in-depth take on empathy:
"the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner; also :the capacity for this"



Bingo. You got it in one. That is a perfectly acceptable definition of empathy.

What I was saying near the beginning of this thread that got lost, is that people shouldn't be forced into this kind of situation. The president really has no business here except for being the detached boss, but he doesn't know these people involved. So, if he puts on a bad show, it's more expected, yet he shouldn't have to put on a good show either, because this insults both parties. The wife deserves something authentic, and it can't be in this example.

so I empathize, but I can't honestly know what this person is actually feeling.

Using the Merriam-Webster definition, we can see that one does not need to know what the person is actually feeling in order to empathize. When you experience something vicariously, you often do so through substitution. You remember the feelings you went through in a similar situation, and can use those feelings to try to understand what someone else is going through.

Right, and that is what I was also speaking about a lot higher up and just above.

Now, let's get back to the discussion that started this all. Donald Trump made no attempt to empathize with the soldier's wife when he called her. The re-wording of his statement that I provided in this thread said everything Trump said, in a very Trumpian manner, and added empathy (comporting with your definition of the word) into the statement. Do you agree? If you disagree, please show how Trump initially included empathy, by your definition, or my re-worded statement lacked empathy (also by your definition).

I never said that Trump had empathy here. I can't know what's in his heart, but I clearly don't trust him. Trump was more involved in a political obligation. And it doesn't matter whether this was given by Obama or Trump. I said that the wife deserved much better from people who actually knew and cared about her and/or her husband.

The president is not supposed to be a 'detached boss'. He is directly and personally responsible for putting the lives of military personnel at risk. If that results in their deaths, then it is his fault, and he needs at the very least to apologize to the dead person's family, and ideally he needs to be able to explain why their death was a necessary service to the nation.

This whole 'detached boss' oxymoron is dangerous bullshit - either you are the boss, or you can be detached. You cannot be both at once, no matter how much you might want to pretend that you are - and that applies whether you are running the country, or a lemonade stand; and whether your decisions lead to people's deaths, or just to people being made to suffer some minor indignity. If you cannot accept responsibility for the things that happen to subordinates on your watch, then you shouldn't take on a position of authority.

As Harry Truman famously pointed out, the buck stops with the President - and the President has to man up and accept that responsibility, which includes a duty to say 'sorry' to the surviving family when someone under his command - which as Commander in Chief, means anyone in any of the armed forces - is killed.

 

[Underseer]

Is there something wrong with the utter lack of empathy or even human decency?

Because you know that Trump isn't the only conservative in this country, right?

 

[Elixir]

Is there something wrong with the utter lack of empathy or even human decency?

Because you know that Trump isn't the only conservative in this country, right?

He's no conservative - just an opportunistic egomaniac. There is no principle - conservative or otherwise - that he won't instantly abandon if he thinks it will make him look for the moment like he got a WIN.

 

[KeepTalking]

So, does that mean that empathy is a meaningless term, or that you have a slightly different take on what empathy means? It seems by your next statement, that it is the latter take. Fortunately, there are other dictionaries that present it in slightly different terms.

Merriam-Webster provides us with this slightly more in-depth take on empathy:
"the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner; also :the capacity for this"



Bingo. You got it in one. That is a perfectly acceptable definition of empathy.

What I was saying near the beginning of this thread that got lost, is that people shouldn't be forced into this kind of situation. The president really has no business here except for being the detached boss, but he doesn't know these people involved. So, if he puts on a bad show, it's more expected, yet he shouldn't have to put on a good show either, because this insults both parties. The wife deserves something authentic, and it can't be in this example.

Right. I have already acknowledge your having taken this position previously in this thread, and noted that it isn't what the thread is about. Perhaps it was a not a wise decision for him to make the call, but he made the call. The discussion in this thread starts at the point the call was made, and concerns the content of that call. I think we should stick to the confines of that topic for the time being, to avoid getting distracted.

Now, let's get back to the discussion that started this all. Donald Trump made no attempt to empathize with the soldier's wife when he called her. The re-wording of his statement that I provided in this thread said everything Trump said, in a very Trumpian manner, and added empathy (comporting with your definition of the word) into the statement. Do you agree? If you disagree, please show how Trump initially included empathy, by your definition, or my re-worded statement lacked empathy (also by your definition).

I never said that Trump had empathy here. I can't know what's in his heart, but I clearly don't trust him. Trump was more involved in a political obligation. And it doesn't matter whether this was given by Obama or Trump. I said that the wife deserved much better from people who actually knew and cared about her and/or her husband.

I agree that we cannot know what is in his heart, and I certainly don't trust him either. This discussion is not about what is in his heart. It is about what he said, and whether what he said contained any hint of empathy (it didn't). Your challenge was whether or not a statement could be constructed using the things Trump actually said, but adding empathy. I feel that myself and others were able to construct such a statement. Are you now willing to admit that any of us met the stated challenge (not the mystery challenge that was not revealed to us at the time)?

 

[funinspace]

Is there something wrong with the utter lack of empathy or even human decency?

Because you know that Trump isn't the only conservative in this country, right?

He's no conservative - just an opportunistic egomaniac. There is no principle - conservative or otherwise - that he won't instantly abandon if he thinks it will make him look for the moment like he got a WIN.

So is Ted Cruz or Newt Gingrich principled?

 

[Elixir]

He's no conservative - just an opportunistic egomaniac. There is no principle - conservative or otherwise - that he won't instantly abandon if he thinks it will make him look for the moment like he got a WIN.

So is Ted Cruz or Newt Gingrich principled?

That's a difficult question, funinspace. I suspect that years in the Swamp have corroded Cruz and Gingrich's moral compasses to where they're frozen, pointing at the "N" on the bezel. So, in their minds, it points north no matter which way they face. The net effect is the same as no compass at all, except in their own subjective experience, wherein I believe they still think they're the good guys. Trump doesn't think that about himself because Trump doesn't think, period. Thinking is hard, and Cheato is all about easy.