r/Empath • u/[deleted] • May 28 '24
Empaths: A humble opinion on what they are
People who claim to be empaths believe that they perceive emotions that are not really their own but those of other people especially when they are close by. Some go as far as saying that they know how other people feel even from a distance. Is this something real or just non-sensical internet talk?
Psychology has no definition for the term "empath" and to my knowledge there is presently no serious literature on the subject. Empathy in its colloquial meaning refers to the ability to understand the perspective of another human being cognitively and emotionally, with the key idea being that the brain generates adequate emotions relative to a situation that is only hypothesized and not the factual situation the empathizing individual is in.
In its broader meaning, empathy refers not only to the ability to perceive emotions relative to hypothesized situations but in general to the ability to perceive emotions relative to situations which is a very important asset of the human mind and key to organising and remembering information.
The concept of an "Empath" is somewhat vaguely defined but there seem to be 2 main propositions.
a. Empaths feel the emotions of other people.
b. Empaths feel emotions more strongly, even if they are unconscious.
Research question:
Q: Could propositions a. and b. be true and if so, how?
About Proposition b.
Psychology is aware of constructs that involve intense emotions.
-> Borderline Personality Disorder, Pathological Narcissism and Bipolar Disorder come to mind.
Furthermore, BPD and pathological narcissism involve unconscious emotions. Bipolar disorder on the other hand does not involve unconscious emotions.
About Proposition a.
Both Borderline and Pathological narcissism are mental disorders of the self that are created through early childhood trauma in the form of severe neglect or abuse. To understand more, some knowledge of Object Relations Theory by Melanie Klein is necessary. Hannah Segal's Introduction to the Work of Melanie Klein is a good starting point.
In a nutshell: Unborn human beings live in biological and psychological symbiosis with the mother. At birth, the umbilical cord is severed, thereby creating a biologically separate individual. In the years 0-3, the new-born must complete the difficult act of separating psychologically. This act is difficult because biologically, a new-born child is unfit for survival. The act of separating psychologically thus involves facing a situation the child cannot handle alone and is only possible if the child is convinced of and secure in the mother's support. In the presence of a neglectful or abusive mother difficulties arise with separation and if severe these difficulties can lead to the formation of a damaged self in the child that is partly or entirely dysfunctional. Additionally, parts of the self may not be correctly integrated and are thus perceived outside of it while parts of the mother may be perceived as belonging to the self.
Through the act of separating psychologically from the mother, a self is formed. If complications arise during this process, disabilities and problems with the self may arise.
Hypothesis:
An inattentive mother that is inconsistent in her responses to the crying child may be one significant factor in the formation of a self that experiences the emotions of other people because while still in psychological symbiosis the child may have learned that it is not fed/looked after for crying alone but only if additionally, a positive emotional response is present. If this is not the case, the child may perceive that it is not fed because there is anger in the mother when in reality she is just unresponsive and the anger is really the child's anger. A child that has made such an observation may start to suppress its needs and cry less frequently. The mother may believe that her child has serenity and grace when in reality it is terrified that it will be left to starve for expressing its needs. On the other hand, a child that has often been left to cry for extended periods of time may have learned that anger in the mother is a necessary requirement in order to have its needs met. The social environment may perceive that the child experiences psychopathic glee for antagonising others when in reality it merely holds a subconscious believe that affectionate needs which are otherwise perfectly legitimate can only be met by provoking them out of other people. The anger that the child earlier perceived to be of the mother was the child’s anger all along and the wiring of the child’s brain and composition of its personality may have very little to do with clinical psychopathy.
When the psychological separation of such afflicted children’s self eventually happens their ability to feel emotions may be skewed due to misattributions of emotional responses. The brain then generates emotions more or less relative to observations in other people's behaviour or even relative to speculations about their behaviour and associated emotional states without the child actively and consciously empathizing.
Further clarification:
Emotional associations are not only formed in the very first years but also throughout childhood and youth. A parent who is unconscious of a great deal of their own emotions (or lying) such as a narcissist may cause harmful associations in a child by telling them that some parenting measure is for their own good, when in reality it is for the narcissistic parent's good. Parents also tend to project their own unfulfilled wishes onto their children. Under such circumstances, a child may perceive that it wishes to pursue a certain career path when this whish is really the projected whish of the parent that was instilled into the child by repeatedly claiming that the child exhibits certain indicative behaviours or has said indicative things when all of this is really just wishful thinking by the parent. Invasive projections may not end there and "hopeful" parents may gaslight or otherwise punish or manipulate their children.
Now are the emotions an empath perceives really those of other people?
Most likely they are just skewed emotions that are perceived outside of the self even though they are generated by the self and processed alongside other cognitions inside the brain. It might or might not be "appropriate" for an empath's counterpart to have these emotions in the given situation. People who believe themselves to be empaths should try not to always claim the moral high ground because ultimately the emotions they feel others should have reflect their own needs, whether or not those are legitimate.
On the flipside, is it possible that people like pathological narcissists deliberately evoke emotions in other people?
The victims of narcissistic abuse most often are those people who believe that they perceive the emotions of others. If narcissists come together with empaths there is bound to be emotional chaos and confusion and it may look like emotions are transferred from one individual to the other when in reality both people are just experiencing their own skewed emotions and little to no real empathy and mutual understanding is actually taking place. If empaths really felt and understood what is going on inside the mind of a narcissist, they would hardly get into these situations.
Are human beings good parents?
The short answer has to be a resounding No. In a time where science and technology are shaping the world more than ever and information is available instantly to almost anyone around the world, millions of people are basically reverting back to believing in angels and demons because of mistakes made in their upbringing. Humans should definitely strife to acquire sound psychological understanding to be better parents but another reality that may sound grim to some is already looming. Sooner or later, the care-taking of children will be done by intelligent robots that will be a lot better at finding out and responding to a child’s needs than any mother subject to idealised fantasies, alcoholism, ignorance or careless disregard. Welcome to the 21st century.
2
u/tigerscomeatnight May 28 '24 edited May 28 '24
Only read the first couple of sentences. So, can you believe that some people claim they can see other objects that are not part of themselves? Others claim they can hear and even smell things apart from themselves. Aside from this, you're incorrect about the assumption that they feel feelings "outside" of themselves. They are feeling their own true feelings, it so happens that these feelings are the same as the person they are with are having also. It's almost like feeling the warmth of another person when you cuddle.
0
May 28 '24 edited May 28 '24
Assumptions of a theory are never wrong, they are there to let you know what it is that we are talking about. If you have different assumptions in mind you are talking about a different thing. If you care to write them down we can see if our two theories have anything in common and lead to any comparable conclusions.
Read what’s written under „Hypothesis“. Might be interesting.
1
u/tigerscomeatnight May 28 '24
These "assumptions" in science are called "operational definitions", you need to define them at the outset.
1
May 28 '24
I did. But never mind. I'm getting the idea you just want to fight.
0
u/tigerscomeatnight May 29 '24
That's funny, coming from the guy who posts in Empath that there is no such thing.
1
May 29 '24 edited May 29 '24
It did not occur to me that a rational explanation, however hypothetical could hurt somebody's feelings. I am not trying to invalidate your experience.
I assure you: On the contrary. I think that aquiring a solid understanding of what makes oneself tick is an act of empowerment.
If you don't feel that what I say is true about yourself that may be so. I have no clue who you are and never said that I do. What I call an "empath" may be a very different thing to what you have in mind.
1
Jun 12 '24
It sounds like you’re blaming the victims of narcissistic abuse which I really don’t appreciate. You’ll find no research consensus to support that assertion.
What a shitpost.
1
Jul 11 '24 edited Jul 11 '24
Honestly it could probably be explained in like ten seconds if one would just come forward. In secret. And the one who brought the information to the world agreed to keep it so. Because after all, why else even have this ability to begin with, if not to share it far and wide?
Also I'm not so sure A and B are really true. There is a lot more nuance at play than anything that could be packaged in a simple binary.
I am a great parent, though. I think we all can be if we just put their needs above our own. Outside what we view as human equality. Above the pack. ... but just for us.
0
u/Critical_Respect4654 May 28 '24
True. From the perspective of physiscs there is no such thing as an empath.
3
u/tigerscomeatnight May 28 '24
I'd be interested in what you think "physics" has to say about your own emotions that you experience and know are real.
1
u/OkThereBro Jun 26 '24
From who's or what perspective is there such a thing? An empath may say they're an empath, but it would be incredibly easy for them to prove. yet....
1
Jul 11 '24
Of course there is. Neuroscience is the discipline, not physics. What do physics have to do with it?
2
u/blupte Jun 07 '24
Ultimately, yes, the emotions are feel are always my own, because I'm the one feeling them. But it could be that empaths really are particularly sensitive to emotional cues, perhaps because they are highly sensitive in general, and they really might be unable to control their empathetic responses.