Just received this and was moved so decided to share with you all

Sorry Elegran I sort of realised you weren't, but just thought the term had been used rather vaguely in the thread without a very clear definition of what it meant.
Agree with you in deploring the modern trend for requiring visible and obvious signs of compassion.

I missed out the Jane

Yes, I've seen some of them, Jane

I wasn't asking for a definition - just wondering whether the trend now that people "let it all hang out" might be veering toward "You are not weeping uncotrollably with this person so you don't care."

"Empathy is the capacity to recognize emotions that are being experienced by another sentient or fictional being. One may need to have a certain amount of empathy before being able to experience accurate sympathy or compassion."
elegran that's the definition on Wikipedia - there's lots more

J08 - where are your trenchant comments when they are needed?

I know a few people who only talk about themselves! Sometimes I just seem to sit there and listen but then perhaps they have a need which I am able to fulfil? If it does them good to get something off their chest or simply because they don't have any one empathic to talk to then I am happy to be an 'ear'.

There are some on GN who tell a lot about themselves and/or their families and some who tell nothing - different needs.

That's interesting, when.

I had a 'friend' like that, anno. I soon shook her off, as she was draining me. Lacking empathy doesn't make one psychopathic on its own, just selfish if you have the capacity for empathy but don't exercise it. Some people are unable to empathise to any degree, perhaps because of autism or other disorders, but not always the case. Some dangerous/sadistic offenders are only too able to put themselves in the shoes of their victims, using feelings and sensations from inflicting cruelty for their own gratification, but they are still diagnosed psychopathic if they meet the criteria on the other characteristics, but score well on empathy.

Well said Elegran you have put it very well. Society today seems to set more store by the public gestures and manifestations of grief- the flowers by the roadside, the cuddly toys, the public tears. That is not to say that in many cases these are sincerely felt especially by those closely affected, but their absence does not indicate lack of caring.
Who can see inside another person's mind anyway?

I think of someone who thought she was my friend. She used to drop in and tell me all her woes while I made the appropriate noises. Never once did she ask me how I and my family were doing. Not saying she was a psychopath, but I have a feeling that her work colleagues might have an opinion on that. Happily for me, the penny dropped that I didn't like her!

Is empathy defined by being able to know when someone else is suffering and to help them, or by sharing pictures and quotes which demonstrate that quality to others?

I ask because at one point in this thread those of us who admitted that we do not send these pictures, or forward these quotes, were thought to not care about anyone else? A non sequitur.

Doing good by stealth may get you a seat in heaven, but conspicuous exchange of tear-inducing material gets you a reputation for a warm heart - which may or may not be deserved. If you tell everyone often enough that you are empathetic, eventually they believe it, whatever the truth. Vide those millionaires who screw money mercilessly out of their customers and suppliers then splash a small proportion of it on well-publicised charitable works.

Not a continuum but clusters of traits aka. We can all recognise some traits in ourselves and others, but it's the cumulative amount that are assessed as present by licenced psychs, who use Robert Hare's Psychopathy Checklist - Revised to diagnose psychopathy.

Plenty of psychopaths in positions of power, as well as in prisons and special hospitals. Here's the checklst:

www.minddisorders.com/Flu-Inv/Hare-Psychopathy-Checklist.html

I imagine that there is a kind of continuum between a psychopath and someone who only ever thinks of themselves. At least I hope there is. Are psychopaths born that way or do they become that way? The old nature or nurture question again I suppose

Isn't someone completely lacking in empathy a psychopath? If so, I'm not sure that we have all met someone like that, although I do have suspicions about one person I used to know.

Thanks for clarifying that moved.

jane sorry, yes you have misinterpreted my meaning. It was not directed at anyone, not on Gn or anywhere in particular but you are correct in thinking that I believe there are people like that! I have certainly come across people who only think of themselves and I suspect we all have.

* jane* elegran exactly!

I read it that way too Elegran but as I am so frequently accused of misinterpreting what the poster has said, I assumed she meant something entirely different.

Jane That is the impression I got from the post too, and I was about to post that no-one is condemning her for having feelings of sympathy and empathy - far from it, they are praiseworthy - but only hoping that she does not assume that those who do not trumpet their empathy do not have any, or that those who do not like manufactured commercial emotions are devoid of real and natural ones.

moved you said
" I make no apology for sympathy or empathy (I do know what they both mean!) and yes, it can get you into trouble from the people who don't have those feelings feetle"
I took this to mean that you thought some people did not have feelings of sympathy and empathy;

and " I would rather be the person who cares, empathises and sympathises even though others don't like it"
I thought this meant that you thought some people did not like caring, empathising etc.
sorry if I have misinterpreted your meaning.

jane I get the engineers joke, used to work with them!

I did not suggest that anyone said "they don't like caring, sympathy or empathy". Perhaps you mis-read my post?

moved No-one has said they don't like caring, sympathy or empathy, and I would argue that it is someone's psychological make-up, as opposed to their experiences, that enables them to empathise/sympathise more or less effectively with other people. Some people have natural empathy and take up appropriate careers; other people become engineers.*
What some of us have objected to was the literary style of the email you posted, the truthfulness or ortherwise of its sentiments, and the exhortation to pass it on to our friends.
*joke

stansgran I could tell of similar situations but then someone said that talking about your own empathy was wrong!

I make no apology for sympathy or empathy (I do know what they both mean!) and yes, it can get you into trouble from the people who don't have those feelings feetle. However I would rather be the person who cares, empathises and sympathises even though others don't like it and I may be hurt because of it. A kind heart never hurt anyone.

I know perfectly well the difference in meaning between 'empathy' and 'sympathy' just as I know the difference between 'worry' and 'concern' and 'emotive' and 'upsetting'. But I believe some words are now preferred over the others either because people don't know the difference or because they sound more 'edgy'. (And I know what 'edgy' means, did mean and is now used for, as well)

I'm a Tennyson fan too, stansgran. I think my favourite is probably Ulysses. But I'm also a Ted Hughes fan. He is quite different. Love his Thrushes and The thought-fox, for instance.