Not sucking at empathy

I suck at empathy--at least sometimes. I can empathize with some people in some situations, but sometimes when someone I care about has been unhappy about the same thing for a while, wants my empathy, and  isn’t willing to take my excellent advice on how to work to alleviate their problem--well, I can sympathize, but I just can't empathize.

What's the difference? Here are the definitions that I will use: sympathy and empathy both involve relating to the thoughts and feelings of another; but empathy  contains the idea of putting oneself in the place of another, and experiencing those thoughts and feelings as one's own.

So let's take a concrete case of sympathy coupled with lack of empathy. Bobbi, a normally sane person, has a list of things that, regularly and reliably, get her upset and occasionally miserable. She tells me about her upset. I listen, then give her excellent advice, which she does not take. In fact, it pisses her off. This strikes me as stupid, which I don't say outright, because I am not crazy. Instead, because I do care, and because she does want me to, I try to empathize, but I can't do it. So I say, "I suck." and quit.

But today we talked this through and I realized that my problem wasn't that I could not empathize; it was that I absolutely wasn't willing to. Empathy involves putting yourself in the other person's place, and I could not do that because in her place I would never, ever think, do, or feel the things that she thinks, does, and feels. Instead, I would take action. I would ask me for some excellent advice; I would listen, respectfully; I would do what I advised; and I would go on to live a happier and more productive life.

Not being able to put myself in her place for that reason seems rational if convoluted, but it has the signs of being really stupid, too. Here’s why: if my goal is to help her; and if she believes that empathy will help; and if I believe that empathy might help, or at least believe that empathy would not hurt; and I believe that providing what she wants might make her amenable to more effective approaches--such as my excellent advice, well--why not empathize?

And if not empathizing leads to conflicts and upset instead of what I want--which is to be helpful, why in hell do I adamantly insist on doing that which doesn’t get what I want and reliably gets what I don’t want? It’s irrational. It's stupid. And I’m doing exactly what I rail against. Acting stupidly. Realizing that, there’s only one rational answer. I need to ask myself for some of that excellent advice.

"Follow the ABC+D model," I tell myself. "Do that, and you will quickly find the irrationality and be able to handle it. "I thank myself, because it’s obvious that this is excellent advice that will quickly lead to good results. And I followed that excellent advice (with some help and attentive listening from Bobbi) and here's how it went.

A) I have an Activating event: a request for empathy. C) I have undesirable Consequences: No empathy; Bobbi not helped, and occasionally pissed off because I will not empathize; me frustrated and sometimes pissed off because I cannot help mainly because she will not listen to my excellent advice. So there’s an A leading to some very bad Cs. According to the theory, that means there are intermediating irrational Beliefs (B). The formula says: find them, and dispute them. It’s not hard to find them. They’re right out in the open. And not hard to dispute them. They’re pretty dumb once you see them in the bright sunlight.

 

First is the Belief that she is being an idiot. That’s easy to dispute. Years of marriage have proved that she is not only much less an idiot than I am, but actually much smarter. At worst, she is behaving in a way that is not productive. Fine. But that does not make her behavior idiotic. It's unproductive and persists for reasons that I don't understand. That makes me ignorant; it doesn’t make her an idiot.

Next, of course is the Belief that she SHOULD take my excellent advice because I don't have the problems that she does by following my own excellent advice in the past. (I have others, but never mind.) And that’s also easy to dispute. The evidence is that she’s not listening based on some causal chain of events. So why should she violate the laws of causality? She shouldn't. 

And my advice is not so obviously wonderful, except to me. And since my advice does not make sense to her, so why followsomething that does not make sense. So fine. So she doesn’t have to take my advice. 

OK, so there's no reason for her to change. Why am I completely unwilling willing empathize? 

To do that, I'd have to put myself in her place. And if I did that I believe I’d be stuck not listening to my excellent advice, and continuing to be miserable about this or that. And I have proof of it. After all, that's what she's doing: she’s not listening to my advice and she is stuck and insisting on being miserable. The answer is: “Even though you’re putting yourself in her place, you are in fact, not her. See prior post, "Anyone can be Anything". Being is the easiest thing to change. You can be her or not be her.”

Alright, next: if I was that way, some people would think I was an idiot. And I have proof of that. I think she is an idiot for being that way. So if I was her, then I would think that I was an idiot;  and that sucks because I much more highly regard my own opinion than she does. But that’s double dumb because, first of all, I/she am/is not an idiot, as shown above. And if I, or anyone else thought I was an idiot, so what? Really, what if I and everyone else thinks I am an idiot? Does that make me an idiot? Does that change anything? No.

So, finally, I am ready to give up the following irrational beliefs: 1) That she is an idiot; I know she is not. 2) That she is behaving idiotically;  I don’t know this for a fact; what I do know is that I don’t understand why she does what she does. 3) That she should listen to me. She shouldn’t because she doesn't; and because I’m actually wrong more often than she is. 4) That I’d get stuck if I empathized. Doesn’t have to be that way. 5) That I’d be judged by me and others. So what?

So I give up these irrational beliefs. Does this make me emphatic? Maybe a little more. Certainly it gets the wrong thinking out of the way. It changes me from being one who  hides behind “I suck at empathy,” and lets me be one who actively tries to get better. That deals with the cognitive side.

The behavioral side: do it. I believe if you do anything often enough you get good at it. So that's what I need to do.

And it encourages me to look for other areas where I adamantly refuse to be or do what would be helpful. Ahh, I feel better already.

Anyone can be anything

What do you want to be when you grow up? That's what grown-ups ask kids all the time. It's the wrong question. Being is easy, especially for kids. A kid can be a cowboy, a firefighter, a soldier, all in the space of a few minutes.

Being is not only easy for kids. It's dead easy for adults too. Watch this: I'm a writer. Now I'm an actor. Now I'm a fireman. Now I'm back to being a writer. I can be anything that I want to be. But once I'm being something can I do anything effective? That's a greater challenge.

When I'm being a writer I can write--or not write. If I write, I'm being what you might call a productive writer, or a practicing writer. If I don't write, then I'm being a blocked writer, or a lazy writer, or an aspiring writer. Whether I write or don't write, once I decide I'm a writer, I'm still a writer.

Want to be a writer who writes? Easy: sit down, pick up a piece of paper and a pen and write anything at all--say the word 'dog.' Wow! You're not only a writer but you are writing. Not very much, and not very good, but it's a start. So doing is almost as easy as being.

Doing something well is where it starts to get hard: it takes practice, practice, practice. And not just practice: it takes constant review, criticism, self improvement, maybe coaching and education--what Malcom Gladwell in his book "Outliers" calls "deliberate practice." If your objective is ambitious it may take Gladwell's 10,000 hours of practice. And even that may not be enough if you don't start with a certain level of talent or capability. 10,000 hours of practice would never have gotten me to the NBA. I just don't have the physical skills. But I do believe the skills to write.

I've wanted to be a writer for as long as I can remember. It took a long time to realize that 'being a writer' was an easy and unsatisfying goal; writing effectively and fluidly was more like it. I've done that more than a few times and I discovered that wasn't what I wanted either. What I now want (and I believe I always really wanted but could not articulate) was to have a body of writing that I wrote and that satisfied me.

And that's what I'm working on (among other things): being what I need to be and doing what I need to do in order to have what I want to have: that body of work.

Right now I want something less than a body of work. I want to have one more finished post. To do that I'm being a writer (easy); I'm writing this blog post (a little harder); I'm rewriting and editing it so that I'm satisfied (much harder); and by the time you see it, it will have reached the state of "good enough for now" and I will have posted it.

Then on to the next post, and the next, and the next. And if I do this (and other practices of writing) enough, I I'll get to my long term goal--maybe.

So I'm writing a lot. I've got five blogs going; I've just finished my first play; I've got some other writing projects in mind. My plan is to produce a few posts a week on each of the blogs. If I keep that up--or even amp it up beyond that--I might reach my long-term goal. Or I might die trying, which is not so bad, either.

The right question is to ask kids--and yourself is not "what do you want to be?" It's what do you want to accomplish--to have? Then figure out what you need to do to get that. Then figure out what you need to be to do that. Then be that; do that; and maybe you'll have that.

At least you'll have fun.

Related articles

• How will you close in on your 10,000 hours today? (lisarivero.com)
• The 10,000 Hour Rule (bellwort.wordpress.com)
• What Malcolm Sees (lisarivero.com)

Do the Work: How to misery-proof yourself

Albert Ellis wrote "How to Refuse to Make Yourself Miserable About Anything. YES ANYTHING!" in 1988.  I've found it to be a better exposition of his theories--and more important, of his practices--than some of his later work. It's better organized, and better written.

I'm not miserable any more, but there certainly were times in my life when I was. And I've still got some scar tissue that needs healing, and a few raw spots that occasionally can be irritated. Books by him and his disciples have helped, as I have blogged, so I came back for more.

You'll have to buy the book to get full value. In fact, as he makes clear, you'll have to buy the book, read the book, and DO THE WORK to get full value. Insights can be useful, he points out, but in the end you've got to DO THE WORK. To make the point he devotes three chapters to this idea, and its variations.

He makes a good argument for his entire approach in the chapter titled "Can Scientific Thinking Remove your Emotional Misery." I'll retitle it: "Can Scientific Thinking Help You Do Lots of Stuff Better." Of course, his answer is yes, and so is mine. You can get some of the argument in this paper.

He says:

"Science is not merely the use of logic and facts to verify or falsify a theory. More important, it consists of continually revising and changing theories and trying to replace them with more valid ideas and more useful guesses. It is flexible rather than rigid, open-minded instead of dogmatic. It strives for a greater truth and not for absolute and perfect truth (with a capital T!).
The principles of RET [note: the B came later] outlined in this book uniquely hold that anti-scientific, irrational thinking is a main cause of emotional disturbance and that if RET persuades you to be an efficient scientist, you will know how to stubbornly refuse to make yourself miserable about practically anything. Yes, anything!
To challenge your misery, try science. Give it a real chance. Work at thinking rationally, stiicking to reality, checking your hypotheses about yourself, about other people, and about the world. Check them against the best observations and facts that you can find. Stop being a Pollyana. GIve up pie-in-the-sky. Uproot your easy-to-come-by wishful thinking. Ruthlessly rip up your childish prayers.

Later he makes what I am taking as the signature insight in my life: the importance of work and practice in any change.

No matter how clearly you see...you will rarely improve except through work and practice--yes, considerable work and practice--to actively change your disturbance-creating Beliefs and vigorously (and often uncomfortably) act against them.

...to change your ideas [and behavior], you had better persistently work at doing so--since you are born and reared to think crookedly and to unconsciously slip... 

I like his emphasis on practice. And I really like his "shame challenging exercise." Ellis definition of "shame" is  broad--it goes beyond the feeling we have when we do or think something that we would like to keep hidden and includes the feeling we would have if we did something silly, or unconventional, or even uncomfortable: like dancing in public, wearing odd clothing, talking to strangers, being laughed at by others.

Ellis says: when you've got such a concern, it's because you fear the consequences, which are generally imagined, and usually highly exaggerated. If you talk to a stranger they might turn away; they might say something nasty; they probably would not call the police; and they almost certainly would not beat you up--assuming that what you have said is unconventional and not insulting or provocative. So, he says: go out and do it.

He's used this himself, he tells us. As a young man he was uncomfortable speaking in public and afraid to talk to women to whom he had not been introduced. So he challenged the felling and gave speeches until  he was not only comfortable, and he attempted to start conversations with over a hundred women in a one month period until he was entirely comfortable.

Watch out! I'm going to try that one. If you're ashamed of being seen in the company of a fool you probably don't want to be around when I do it.

Related articles

• 12 Irrational Beliefs (wpfw.blogspot.com)
• I've Changed My Story and I'm Sticking To It! (dawenings.wordpress.com)

Why self-discipline (sucking it up) sucks

I’ve realized that self-discipline, so-called, is a lousy technique for personal change, for me certainly. Now I know why, and based on this analysis I believe it sucks for everyone. I can use ABC+D to get a better result. So can you. Here’s why, and how.

According to the ABC theory of Rational Emotional Behavioral Therapy (REBT), discussed in this post, when behavior (a Consequence (C) ) runs counter to a Goal you’re trying to achieve, it’s not by accident. There’s a reason: an Activating event (A) plus a Belief (B) has led to the undesirable Consequences (C). To handle it, according to the theory, to get an Effective result (E) you need to uncover the Belief, and then Dispute it (D). Then you get to do what you set out to do. E=ABC+D.

What if I don’t use ABC+D but instead try to use "self-discipline” to get some desired result? As I have tried many times. After all, that’s what everyone says. Suck it up! Well, sucking it up sucks.

There are two problems with the self-discipline approach. The first is that usually it doesn’t work. The number of failed self-disciplined diets, self-disciplined exercise programs, and on and on worldwide—is enormous and growing daily. That’s a good reason to drop self-discipline, but despite that, people kept telling me and others to do it; and I’ve kept telling myself to do it, and then telling myself that I sucked when I couldn’t do it.

The second problem is worse. Suppose I do “suck it up” and force myself to do whatever it is I’m trying to do. When I do that, what am I actually doing? Well if the undesired behavior is because of a Belief that I hold then “self-discipline” equals forcing myself to do something that goes against my belief! The fact that I have an opposite belief doesn’t matter. I’m bullying myself to breach my own integrity by acting against something (however self-disabling in its consequences) that I believe.

Self-discipline then becomes self-brutalizing.

Better to find, Dispute, and change the Belief than to breach integrity.

Example: I want to write a post called “Self-discipline sucks.” Kind of like this one. Only finished. Instead of writing it, I find myself editing the first part over and over. Then surfing the web. If I do that (and I did)—I have some Beliefs that support those Consequence. And I do.

One Belief that makes me over-edit is: “What I wrote isn’t very good—so I should fix it.” I dispute it by saying: “Yes, but you know that if you go back to edit it before you finish your first draft, it will be both not very good and not done. You’ll be better able to make it good after you’ve gotten all your ideas down.” I quickly agree (this actually happened) and go back to completing my draft.

Another is: “I can always make it better—so I should keep working on it.” Dispute: “Yes, you can make it better. You can always make it better. No matter how good anything is, it’s not perfect, and so by definition you can make it better. But the fact that you can make it better doesn’t mean you should work on it more.”

One Belief that supports surfing is “I need to do some more research.” I dispute it by saying: “you know what you want to say. Just say it. You can find citations later.”

So, if you see this post, you’ll know that this was successful.

I suppose I could have beaten myself into finishing it, and I have in the past. But the beatings have stopped, because morale has improved.

And now it’s time to push the button and….post.

Technorati Tags: REBT,ABC+D,Writing,Productivity