Damn, this is acutely on point! Such an insightful piece, as always. If our society lately had a “disorder”, it’d be narcissism. Sorry to make this about me, but I have a piece I’m posting in a couple days entirely about shame, so I’m delighted to see someone else express that idea. I came to the conclusion that the recent rise of the far right has a lot to do with running away from collective shame. And shifting it onto stupid things again, like sex and being ‘different’. But as you also have noted, there ARE some things we should keep shame alive about - like dehumanising others.
Hi, Jessica. You have put into words what I have been thinking recently (and said to people IRL and in online chats) in a much more eloquent way than I ever could. Regardless of psychiatric diagnoses, it is true that empathy, compassion and caring are derided. I have always been told I am over sensitive but I wear that as a badge of honour. My ability to feel other people’s emotions served me well when I was a mental health nurse. I know you are anti-psychiatry, but, as a nurse I didn’t have to be stuck in the medical model so rigidly.
Just a quick question, do you think this is a backlash to feminism and The Patriarchy is asserting itself? As you say, many of these qualities are gendered. Also, psychiatry tends to be more male-dominated. I sacked my psychiatrist last year because he was a bully and a misogynist.
This is not a critical article as you proclaim, it is biased, sensationalised and lacking in factual rigour.
Being a HSP isn’t just about being empathic, it’s about having a very sensitive nervous system. It’s a description not a diagnosis. It’s a way for people to understand why they feel different to others and why they struggle. It’s a biological difference in the brain that is present in around 20% of the population.
In my experience as a Psychotherapist, people aren’t being diagnosed with conditions for being empathic. To say that is ridiculous.
People are being diagnosed when they are at harm to themselves or others to enable them to get the correct treatment.
I agree that society creates these issues through systemic and intergenerational trauma, lack of early intervention and a broken education system.
I think you could have written a great article without being so biased and lacking in critical argument.
Is Sarah’s comment in relation to Elaine Aron’s research based on fMRI studies displaying higher activation in areas of the brain related to emotional and attention processing, and if so- would you attribute this more to environment than biology?
Hi Liz, yes it is - alongside other research indicating strong genetic and biological influences. It’s too simplistic to say that it is just attributed to people who are empathic or even hyper empathic.
Isn’t this exactly the same rhetoric as used for all psychiatric disorders and pathologisation? A vague claim of ‘strong genetic’ basis - with no genes, no genetic tests, no verification? Isn’t this just pathologising people who are perceived to be ‘sensitive’?
Hi Jess, it really isn’t a vague claim. There are genes that have been identified such as 5-HTTLPR and DRD4. HSP isn’t being pathologised - it isn’t in the DSM 5. I agree with you on the over pathologising of what it is to be human and have differences - it shouldn’t be necessary. Hopefully one day it won’t be. But we do need to recognise that the systems that we have in place aren’t appropriate for people whose brains work in a different way than the norm, estimated to be 20% of the population. How are we going to ensure that adjustments are put in place or the way information is presented is adapted to meet these needs? It is helpful to have umbrella terms for certain traits to aid understanding of difference to enable needs to be met and/or appropriate treatment to be given.
I know it is, but it's often thrown around, not unlike narcissist. And I doubt people are regularly given brain scans and the like to establish if their neural system is indeed different
Hi Jess, HSP is believed to be biologically based influenced by genetics, brain function and nervous system responsiveness with some influence of environmental factors.
Hello, Sarah,I'm very interested in what you write,having been for therapy about thirty years ago. I find it difficult to believe in physical factors like genes playing that much of a role in psychological problems, I understand our form as having a complete, true description, which means that I believe it's all linked in truth, but after therapy I changed the wording inside my mind to connect it in truth with the outside World,which is considered as difficult because of how a person believes this worded description is part of who they are and is a perfectly reasonable way to be due to experiences of the outside World, but to me, anybody can do this, however, I do recognise that my life has contained specifics of identity which others haven't had. I do also have a belief in God which has a result of a belief that others can do this if they choose to because of having it as an option when they return for another life.
Just a note on the difference between empathy and sympathy.
In Titchener’s 1910 English translation of the German word Einfuhlung, the ‘pathy’ in em-pathy, introduces an association with pathos, with the notion of illness, suffering, or ‘to suffer with’.
This notion of empathy, suffering with, also differs from the word and idea of ‘sym-pathy’, feeling for.
Once in popular culture, empathy went from being a noun, to becoming a modifier - ‘empathic’ - as in empathic understanding and then to a verb, as in ‘to empathise’.
Thus an attitude is transformed into a technique deployed by therapists who perform ‘feats of empathy’ within psychotherapeutics.
Authority is then accorded to certain psychotherapists (think Carl Rogers), who then lay claim to the capacity to ‘empathise’ with their clients, thereby enabling a further claim to be made of a therapeutic movement.
By 1959, Rogers clarified that accurate empathic understanding meant that the therapist had a sensing of the client’s world of private personal meaning ‘as if’ it were their own, while never forgetting that it is not theirs.
Hence, for Rogers, empathy was not about feeling ‘for’ at all, but about sensing, or feeling, with the other. Feeling for is the domain of sym-pathy. Rogers was not a fan of sympathy, arguing that it was about feeling sorry for someone, or looking down upon them.
Shlien, on the other hand, argues that the edifice built up around the specialist skills required to ‘do empathy’ is rubbish (to use non-academic speak!). It comes naturally, anyone can do it.
Empathy is not ‘understanding’, (that requires volitional effort) and empathy, operating on data, such as smell (the smell of fear), sight (the sight of tears, of blushing), sound (tones, sighs), without understanding or sympathy may be harmful.
Very sadly, being kind, caring and compassionate about other people, the natural environment, and other life forms does not align with capitalism…those who benefit the most within our capitalist societies are those who exploit these things…and the marketing and propaganda that they supply and generate ensure that the majority of people and governments continue to support this way of life…
Yes/and, there are indeed both current political pressures away from valuing 'others'' experiences, in addition to longstanding historical aversion towards engaging rigorously or respectfully with subjective experience at large. "It’s no accident that psychiatry has long been used to silence dissent" - I can only imagine what Foucault would say about our technologically-enhanced surveillance and pathologizing apparatus.
Thank you for writing on this Dr Taylor. In a world in which binary thinking seems to be the norm, I do appreciate this perspective and how it challenges understanding of pathologisation. I feel as though there’s nuance to this, in that the social media culture and environment can often reward tokenistic displays of empathy and activism, but at the same time, social media culture makes it difficult to distinguish true empathy from virtue signalling. It’s difficult to know what’s earnest versus what is a strategic display. Your article encourages critical thought and compassion.
I wrote a bit about virtue signaling and a concept introduced by Dr. Rob Henderson called “Luxury Beliefs” - glad to have read this piece, thank you for your perspective it’s needed ✨
Damn, this is acutely on point! Such an insightful piece, as always. If our society lately had a “disorder”, it’d be narcissism. Sorry to make this about me, but I have a piece I’m posting in a couple days entirely about shame, so I’m delighted to see someone else express that idea. I came to the conclusion that the recent rise of the far right has a lot to do with running away from collective shame. And shifting it onto stupid things again, like sex and being ‘different’. But as you also have noted, there ARE some things we should keep shame alive about - like dehumanising others.
Hi, Jessica. You have put into words what I have been thinking recently (and said to people IRL and in online chats) in a much more eloquent way than I ever could. Regardless of psychiatric diagnoses, it is true that empathy, compassion and caring are derided. I have always been told I am over sensitive but I wear that as a badge of honour. My ability to feel other people’s emotions served me well when I was a mental health nurse. I know you are anti-psychiatry, but, as a nurse I didn’t have to be stuck in the medical model so rigidly.
Just a quick question, do you think this is a backlash to feminism and The Patriarchy is asserting itself? As you say, many of these qualities are gendered. Also, psychiatry tends to be more male-dominated. I sacked my psychiatrist last year because he was a bully and a misogynist.
The male redemption arc is awash with empathy for the transgressors. They forget that part.
This is not a critical article as you proclaim, it is biased, sensationalised and lacking in factual rigour.
Being a HSP isn’t just about being empathic, it’s about having a very sensitive nervous system. It’s a description not a diagnosis. It’s a way for people to understand why they feel different to others and why they struggle. It’s a biological difference in the brain that is present in around 20% of the population.
In my experience as a Psychotherapist, people aren’t being diagnosed with conditions for being empathic. To say that is ridiculous.
People are being diagnosed when they are at harm to themselves or others to enable them to get the correct treatment.
I agree that society creates these issues through systemic and intergenerational trauma, lack of early intervention and a broken education system.
I think you could have written a great article without being so biased and lacking in critical argument.
Disappointed
Hey Sarah,
There is no biomarker for being a ‘HSP’ and no biological differences in brain structure or matter.
Is Sarah’s comment in relation to Elaine Aron’s research based on fMRI studies displaying higher activation in areas of the brain related to emotional and attention processing, and if so- would you attribute this more to environment than biology?
Hi Liz, yes it is - alongside other research indicating strong genetic and biological influences. It’s too simplistic to say that it is just attributed to people who are empathic or even hyper empathic.
Isn’t this exactly the same rhetoric as used for all psychiatric disorders and pathologisation? A vague claim of ‘strong genetic’ basis - with no genes, no genetic tests, no verification? Isn’t this just pathologising people who are perceived to be ‘sensitive’?
Hi Jess, it really isn’t a vague claim. There are genes that have been identified such as 5-HTTLPR and DRD4. HSP isn’t being pathologised - it isn’t in the DSM 5. I agree with you on the over pathologising of what it is to be human and have differences - it shouldn’t be necessary. Hopefully one day it won’t be. But we do need to recognise that the systems that we have in place aren’t appropriate for people whose brains work in a different way than the norm, estimated to be 20% of the population. How are we going to ensure that adjustments are put in place or the way information is presented is adapted to meet these needs? It is helpful to have umbrella terms for certain traits to aid understanding of difference to enable needs to be met and/or appropriate treatment to be given.
I think it's sometimes used to describe empathetic people, not necessarily involving neurological basis.
Perhaps so, if it is then it’s used inaccurately. Being a HSP is so much more than being empathic.
I know it is, but it's often thrown around, not unlike narcissist. And I doubt people are regularly given brain scans and the like to establish if their neural system is indeed different
Makes me think! Thank you
Hi Jess, HSP is believed to be biologically based influenced by genetics, brain function and nervous system responsiveness with some influence of environmental factors.
Hello, Sarah,I'm very interested in what you write,having been for therapy about thirty years ago. I find it difficult to believe in physical factors like genes playing that much of a role in psychological problems, I understand our form as having a complete, true description, which means that I believe it's all linked in truth, but after therapy I changed the wording inside my mind to connect it in truth with the outside World,which is considered as difficult because of how a person believes this worded description is part of who they are and is a perfectly reasonable way to be due to experiences of the outside World, but to me, anybody can do this, however, I do recognise that my life has contained specifics of identity which others haven't had. I do also have a belief in God which has a result of a belief that others can do this if they choose to because of having it as an option when they return for another life.
Thank you so much for articulating what I've been feeling for a long time now. We are not "weird"!
Just a note on the difference between empathy and sympathy.
In Titchener’s 1910 English translation of the German word Einfuhlung, the ‘pathy’ in em-pathy, introduces an association with pathos, with the notion of illness, suffering, or ‘to suffer with’.
This notion of empathy, suffering with, also differs from the word and idea of ‘sym-pathy’, feeling for.
Once in popular culture, empathy went from being a noun, to becoming a modifier - ‘empathic’ - as in empathic understanding and then to a verb, as in ‘to empathise’.
Thus an attitude is transformed into a technique deployed by therapists who perform ‘feats of empathy’ within psychotherapeutics.
Authority is then accorded to certain psychotherapists (think Carl Rogers), who then lay claim to the capacity to ‘empathise’ with their clients, thereby enabling a further claim to be made of a therapeutic movement.
By 1959, Rogers clarified that accurate empathic understanding meant that the therapist had a sensing of the client’s world of private personal meaning ‘as if’ it were their own, while never forgetting that it is not theirs.
Hence, for Rogers, empathy was not about feeling ‘for’ at all, but about sensing, or feeling, with the other. Feeling for is the domain of sym-pathy. Rogers was not a fan of sympathy, arguing that it was about feeling sorry for someone, or looking down upon them.
Shlien, on the other hand, argues that the edifice built up around the specialist skills required to ‘do empathy’ is rubbish (to use non-academic speak!). It comes naturally, anyone can do it.
Empathy is not ‘understanding’, (that requires volitional effort) and empathy, operating on data, such as smell (the smell of fear), sight (the sight of tears, of blushing), sound (tones, sighs), without understanding or sympathy may be harmful.
Very sadly, being kind, caring and compassionate about other people, the natural environment, and other life forms does not align with capitalism…those who benefit the most within our capitalist societies are those who exploit these things…and the marketing and propaganda that they supply and generate ensure that the majority of people and governments continue to support this way of life…
It’s those that lack empathy that ironically do the pathologizing. Shadow much?
Jessica, this is so true. Thank you for giving voice to something that is horribly topsy turvy.
Yes/and, there are indeed both current political pressures away from valuing 'others'' experiences, in addition to longstanding historical aversion towards engaging rigorously or respectfully with subjective experience at large. "It’s no accident that psychiatry has long been used to silence dissent" - I can only imagine what Foucault would say about our technologically-enhanced surveillance and pathologizing apparatus.
Thank you for articulating this so clearly. I had hunches about these sorts of negative responses - but you lay it out with great clarity.
That so much is traceable back to power and control comes as no surprise.
Jessica oh how right you are! This has brought me to tears. Am obviously ‘too sensitive’😘
Thank you for writing on this Dr Taylor. In a world in which binary thinking seems to be the norm, I do appreciate this perspective and how it challenges understanding of pathologisation. I feel as though there’s nuance to this, in that the social media culture and environment can often reward tokenistic displays of empathy and activism, but at the same time, social media culture makes it difficult to distinguish true empathy from virtue signalling. It’s difficult to know what’s earnest versus what is a strategic display. Your article encourages critical thought and compassion.
Thank you for this article. Being an empathy myself, I am often told that I am too soft.
So relevant to the awful Musk quote recently
And so relevant to society not rewarding cadets or women after having kids and often punishing them with low or no pay too.
I wonder when it became devalued
I wrote a bit about virtue signaling and a concept introduced by Dr. Rob Henderson called “Luxury Beliefs” - glad to have read this piece, thank you for your perspective it’s needed ✨