Empathy is having its moment. It is touted as a cure for the divisiveness we are experiencing as a society – surely if the left can feel what the right is feeling and see things from their perspectives, and vice versa, then we could all come to some common ground and unite as a nation. There have been studies that show indeed empathy seems to be in the decline -- the average American college student in 2009 scored as less empathic than 75 percent of students in 1979, suggesting that if not causal, reduced empathy at least somewhat correlates to societal discord. So social psychologists have rushed into the study of empathy in search of a recipe to restore social harmony.
What’s interesting is when psychologists break down the concept of empathy, they find there are two main components: the first being the affective component, the sharing of the affects and emotions of others, and the other being the cognitive component, the perspective taking, the ability to take the perspective of others and understand where their emotions come from. The two components are related but they can exist independent of each other. The affective component actually exists in animals, across various species. In experiments where a rat is receiving electric shock, a neighboring rat who is witnessing the pain squeals more. And we have all heard of stories about how dogs are humans’ best friends providing comfort to their owners. But arguably the animals may not have the cognitive capacity to understand or at least to articulate what is causing the pain in others – they just intuitively feel it.
The dichotomy between these two components of empathy is best illustrated by the two extreme cases in humans: psychopaths and autists, who are frequently misunderstood as being unempathetic, but in fact only lack one component of empathy. Autistic people lack cognitive empathy but not affective empathy while psychopaths are very strong in cognitive empathy but are incapable of feeling affective empathy. In fact, it is precisely the fact that psychopaths are unencumbered by affective empathy while enjoying astute understanding of what causes pain in others that allows them to take advantage of other people’s weakness without having to suffer through negative emotions normal people would experience when inflicting pain on others. Autistic people, on the other hand, have enormous compassion for other people – they literally suffer along with other people in negative emotions, but they have a hard time understanding why other people are suffering and are helpless in easing other people’s pain.
The real antithesis to empathy is actually narcissism. Narcissistic people (Trump being the prime example) simply focus all of their attention on themselves, completely oblivious to other people’s feelings, nor would they bother to go through the intellectual exercise to take other people’s perspectives. Narcissists have no intellectual or emotional room for empathy.
Learning these two aspects of empathy has sparked a therapy session between me and my husband. In the spectrum between psychopaths who have super strong cognitive empathy but no affective empathy and autists who have super strong affective empathy but no cognitive empathy (most people fall somewhere in between), I fall more under the psychopath side of the scale whereas my husband tips over to the autist side. I have never had a problem with taking others’ perspectives – writing novels and screenplays in effect requires the writer to put him or herself in the shoes of another character – but I seldom cry at movies or over novels. My husband, on the other hand, is so defenseless against tearjerkers that I often exit the theatre with him questioning my femininity. And it’s no coincidence we are the way we are – our childhoods provide the perfect explanations. I was the only child and with my parents away most of the time (in the countryside during the Cultural Revolution), I grew up lonely and introspective. My husbands’ family is never the talkative kind, never cultivating an atmosphere of communication and mutual understanding.
And this difference between our cognitive and affective empathy explains so much of our marital conflict! As someone who has an acute understanding of how to hurt my husband, I frequently employ tactics like silent treatments or yelling to get him to suffer so I can get what I want. My husband, while tuned into my frustration, is inadequate in his understanding of why I’m frustrated or angry. Based on his experience, these trivial matters should not have triggered such an uproar. So he is confused, puzzled, and utterly useless in consoling me. To make matters worse, as a woman who has been fed with the myth that romance is based on the man’s ability to read me and surprise me with what I want before I myself know that is what I want, I am constantly disappointed by my husband’s inability to live up to my romantic ideal. It is not a lack of effort on his part – he tried many times, even heroically – but he fails miserably, every single time. How could he not know what I want, after 23 years of marriage?!
Luckily, I have developed a coping mechanism, albeit with much regret and reluctance. I have come to expect no surprises. Instead, I tell him exactly what I want and give painstaking instructions to ensure every detail is exactly the way I want it. I have also learned to be more emotionally independent. Since my husband cannot help me with my emotional outbursts, the best way for me to deal with those emotions is to turn inward, using my cognitive ability on myself and figure out what are the underlying causes. I can then share these causes with my husband, who is always supportive in whatever I need to do to overcome them. My husband has also learned to call out my manipulative tactics, how much that hurts him, and sometimes even imitating my behavior so I can feel what he feels. I guess that is the reason why we are still together – that we both adapted to each other’s psychological deficiencies. But this is definitely a Eureka moment for both of us, coming to full realization who we are, why we are the way we are, and how we can turn the negative into positive.
The discussion has actually made my husband superbly happy, because in this process of self therapy, I have confessed to be the worse person in this marriage, the one with the malicious intent, whereas he ends up being the good guy, just with a little communication defect. If this self-deprecating humor is all it takes to save us thousands in marriage counseling and keep our marital bliss, I will gladly be the sacrificial lamb here. In my defense, people with psychopath tendencies are also most likely to be influential people. The careers with the highest proportion of psychopaths are: CEOs, lawyers, surgeons, and journalists. Many of these careers actually demand people to demonstrate less emotion -- imagine a CEO balling in front of employees or a surgeon paralyzed by the pain of his patients. So my psychopathic disposition may just be an occupational hazard. But most importantly, I hope this little confession is not only therapeutic for me, but may also give you a good laugh, and it may even be inspirational for some – if crazy folks like me and my husband can make our marriage work, there should be hope for many couples out there. As they say, love conquers all.
