Offendees

Anything can offend your sensibilities. It doesn't have to be anything personal to you.

'Sympathy' and 'empathy' are quite different things.

You can empathise with someone's feelings without actually having any sympathy for them. And you can feel sympathy for someone just because they are sad, without actually empathising with how they feel.

I looked up the difference between empathy and sympathy if someone is stuck in a hole, which is the one I was taught. This one uses the same example - I think it is pretty common. It may answer you question thatbags

I agree with JBF about the two things being very different and how she describes the possibility of one without the other.

Thanks, gg. I notice the writer uses the word "can" with regard to sympathy causing a heirarchy. Can is a very loose word. Sympathy doesn't need to involve feelings of superiority. I think it's possible to be sympathetic (feel and express sympathy) without feeling superior and to receive someone's sympathy without feeling inferior.

Actually, I think using those words about sympathy muddies the idea. What I've seen so far on the subject is clearly about making empathy somehow 'better' than sympathy. Any associated heirarchy lies in people's heads.

I wonder if the common, but I think mistaken, idea that pity is always negative ("I don't want your pity!") is part of what has caused this negativity towards sympathy?

Thanks Gg. I think the hole example is a good one.

But I'm not so sure about the 'examples' given:
Sympathy: Empathy:
I am so sorry about your loss. I feel your grief.
How awful. Poor you. I understand this has been a great loss
for you.
Let me do that for you. Can I help you with that?
I feel so sad for you. I feel and understanding your pain.

It's perfectly possible to say those empathetic words without in the least projecting yourself into the other person's mind. Only 7% of communication is verbal and there's a lot more to expressing true empathy than just uttering words which by themselves can sound hollow.

It reminds me of people who say 'I hear what you're saying, but......' and then go on to repeat their argument obviously without having listened to the other side at all!

GRRR! The post hasn't come out as I typed it.
The comments should be in two columns - first comment sympathetic response, second one empathetic.

I think most of us can understand the difference between the two words,
And in reading all the posts and thinking about it, I still think the word empathy is bandied about in real life and sometimes on here too easily.As Thatbags has already said, it has somehow come to mean better than sympathy, a sort of souped up sympathy.Perhaps because there is so much crying and sobbing going on nowadays, often because a person hasn't got through to the next round of something on TV ( just self pity) or some such thing.

Sometimes empathy is called for, but more often I think, sympathy fits the bill.

Thatbags I would agree that the word "may" would be better in this instance.

janeainsworth I wasn't all that impressed with the examples in the link but when I was learning about this (from a psychologist) it was to do with management. The point that was made to me was that both sympathy and empathy are right in different circumstances. I have just reread the way this example puts it and it is completely the reverse of how I was told although, in some ways, the explanations are similar. In the version I received the person explained that getting into the hole would probably be appropriate with a friend who, say had lost someone close. You would show that felt a little of what they are feeling; this is sympathy. Whereas, in a work situation, etc., staying at the top of the hole, conveying that you understand the situation but helping them move it forward - getting someone "out of the hole" - would be more useful; that would be empathy.

Both are also inappropriate in some circumstances.

No I dont think that empathy is sharing feelings. That sort of implies that they can be divided around, and they cant.

I dont think that empathy is superior to sympathy.
I think they are two seperate things.

I think *Gracesgran's psychologist is an example of how the words have shifted in their meanings, and how we can argue from different points, but the basic principles are the same.

How old was the psychologist (approximately?) What generation?

Not divided around. That would imply that enough people having empathy would cut down the feelings until they were diluted to nothing, but it doesn't work that way. Perhaps reflected is a better word.