Things that aren’t empathy (let alone “compassion”) but we mistake for it.

Allright. Let’s unmask the fake-nice people once and for all.

Photo by János Venczák on Unsplash

Humans have the capacity for empathy and potential for compassion. Every religion will tell you that, with different wording — sometimes fancy, other times straight-up.

It’s not a mystery. This understanding is almost like an instinct, as basic as knowing how to breathe or how to eat. Everyone is attuned to the fact that we have a good side — despite also having a bad side. (And perhaps “side” isn’t the best word, but that’s the dualistic English language for you). This is why, time and again, we overestimate our ability to engage with it.

…Just like, ya know, time and again we choke or have hiccups, despite knowing “so very well” how to breathe and how to eat — and not to mistake the two. But lo and behold, mistakes happen, even with instinctive knowledge.

Here’s a list of self-serving acts we sometimes (oopsie!) mistake for empathy or compassion:

• Silencing the other. (For example, the well-meaning “your distress is causing me distress”, followed by a very underhanded, very covert request for the person to stop sharing. That’s not compassion. That’s not “feeling what the other feels”. That’s silencing in order to stay blissfully ignorant about the existence of a not-very-beautiful side of life).
• Tone-policing the other. (For example, “for your own good, dear, I advise you to use more mindful language when talking about this problem. It’s such a distressing problem, isn’t it? So let’s take it easy with how we share” Or, WORSE still, weaponising law of attraction lingo — “I understand you’re upset, but let’s raise our vibration in order to attract good things now”. Uhhhh no. Stop it. That’s insensitive, and not empathetic at all).
• One-upping the other. (For example, “oh, no. Yes, I totally understand what you’re going through. In fact, I used to go through a similar thing, and then [insert aggravating factor that makes the story even worse than what the person told you]”. At least this is not invalidating… But it’s the opposite. It’s Oppression Olympics. Equally harmful, and not compassionate in the slightest, but competitive instead).
• Shaming the other for having a “small problem”. (Look, if you find the problem too small, or “nothing compared to global warming or [insert big cause here]”… Keep that to yourself. Say a platitude and walk away. You have ZERO excuse to shame somebody for being vulnerable with you. Zero. That’s the kind of bullshit you’ll end up paying for if the “final judgement” some religions believe in actually exists. I’m not exaggerating. It’s evil. It’s actually evil. Shame on you).
• Siding with the person the other perceives as enemy. (Yes, even if you’re objectively right. We’re looking for empathy here, not objectivity. You’re not gonna be helpful if you shame the person you’re trying to help. Shame is for call-outs, not for [a fake] “friendly chat”. If you actually dislike the person or feel like you’re on opposite sides of [insert moral debate here], why bother even talking to them? Don’t be a fake, self-centered arsehole. Don’t be a coloniser who indoctrinates, either).
• Assuming too much. (This is self-explanatory. Some people even take it to the next level by completing sentences for the other before they’re done speaking. Disgustingly selfish. This is NOT empathy. It comes from a need to feel wise or useful without actually doing the work).
• Resenting (or worse: “holding the person accountable for”) the fact they rejected your help. (This is not empathy. It’s self-serving. Empathy DOES NOT EQUAL CONTROL. Repeat that like a mantra until it sticks).
• Cherrypicking only what’s convenient for you. As in: ignoring what was said that you don’t know how to address, instead of being honest and letting the person know you’re not an expert at X but you can probably help with Y, but you’re acknowledging both nonetheless. This is not empathy.
• Offering a blanket solution even before you’re given details about the situation. (Optional: why not make it even worse? Try accusing the person of self-centeredness or narcissism because they dared implying their situation is unique or has anything unique about it and the one-size-fits-all dogma you have won’t do. THAT’S worse. And I’ve seen it happen more times than it should). Not empathetic.
• Co-opting the “clout” for social justice movements that actually don’t concern you, just because they’re trending. (How many white people speaking on behalf of [insert POC minority here] with regards to “cultural appropriation” have you seen on social media this week? Bonus points for “never lived with, interacted with, or even read much about this minority but feels entitled to speak on behalf of them because of group-think and hashtags”. How many people wearing [insert flag here] but donating nothing to help victims of war? Etc). Very far from empathy, it’s vanity.
• Disbelieving others’ problems just because you don’t go through the same. (Don’t get me wrong, you can disbelieve. Not everyone is honest. But for god’s sake at least have VALID evidence that confirms the person is lying, and not just a self-centered, comfort-seeking, close-minded reason to disagree. You’re not a know-it-all. You’re here on this planet to learn until the goddamn day you die. Eat some humble pie). There’s no empathy here, not even an attempt.
• Saying “I would empathise with you if…” or “I would feel compelled to help you if…” (No. Stop right there. Conditional empathy is not real empathy. It’s narcissism. If you don’t empathise, you don’t empathise. Period).
• Pretending to care… When in fact you’re just sitting there in silence, making zero effort to be an ally, and just accepting defeat.

You see… THESE REASONS (and more! I’m sure we can find more together) are behind my sentiment that fake-nice people are worse than psychopaths. They’re not as evil, but they do more damage. Psychopaths are simply creating some of the social problems we have. They can have a facade but they won’t die defending it. They’re straightforward. Fake-nice people, on the other hand, offer surface-level low-effort solutions that are actually counterproductive and only serve to slow down the resolving of problems. Without their sugarcoated and thinly-veiled conformity, the problems we deal with wouldn’t be as powerful or hard to eradicate. (Insert here Simone de Beauvoir quote that says the same).

All of the above stem from the ego, but it’s not the flashy, loud, overt ego we’ve all heard about. It’s covert. It’s hiding behind a facade of “look at me, I’m so humble, I’m so kind, I’m so nice”.

Fake empathy comes from a desperation to be useful (the movie Encanto has a beautiful metaphor about that — but of course the people who relate don’t bother actually watching how the story unfolds and the character grows, and just give Luisa a free pass the way she already was from the start, seeing nothing wrong with her attitude. Typical).

Fake compassion, on the other hand, comes from a narcissistic quest for admiration (except it isn’t for “how rich you are” and thus how much you deserve the status of popular, but instead, in this case, “how good you are” and how much you deserve the status of saint. It’s pursuing status all the same).

With both, you’re not seeing your own inherent value as a person and thus you resort to these covert techniques to garner EXTERNAL validation. That’s why I said they’re narcissistic. (Not the disorder. The qualifier).

But before we go into that, let’s make a helpful distinction:

Empathy vs Compassion

No, I didn’t just use “empathy” or “compassion” at random when I was making the list. Feel free to return to the list after you read this section and you’ll see why.

Photo by Eduardo Barrios on Unsplash

Empathy and compassion are two understandably confusing concepts, because they’re used almost as synonyms. Dictionaries (in many languages, not just English) tend to differentiate them via the nuance of feeling. I mean the verb. To feel.

It’s a nuance, not an absolute, because empathy is also something you feel; but with empathy, there isn’t so much focus on the act of feeling together. That’s what compassion is for.

So, if I were to summarise the difference between the two in my own understanding, I’d say:

A) empathy is geared towards tangible (and/or other kinds of easily perceivable) generosity. Empathy is something you feel when you see people suffer, and it prompts you to action to help solve the problem, or at least raise awareness. I personally think raising awareness is already an action in solving problems, because without awareness, nothing is ever done. My blog is full of empathetic articles, for example.

B) compassion is different. Sure, you feel it when you see people suffer, but you can’t feel compassion in a vacuum. You need the connection with the other person right there and then (well, maybe not physically, but still, more than just in theory). Empathy is a thing you can feel in a vacuum! There is such a thing as cognitive empathy (and although it sometimes leads to problems, it’s by definition a normal part of empathy). Compassion, on the other hand, depends 100% on how well you connect with others, because it can’t function solely on the basis of assumptions and moral reasoning. Compassion doesn’t always lead to a tangible or perceivable result… but it’s important, because when it exists TOGETHER with empathy, it prevents the overly empathetic (but not compassionate enough) well-meaning “helper” from inadvertently making the situation worse.

The “empathy distress” elephant in the room:

Before you ask, no, I don’t subscribe to the idea of “empathy fatigue” or “empathy distress” — or whatever it is you’re calling it these days. I almost fell for it, but I no longer believe it’s coming from empathy. The phenomenon people call empathy fatigue/distress is in fact self-centered fragility. (White fragility, for example. But there are other kinds too). Note how most people who talk about it are from a privileged background in society. You don’t really see people who live in poverty and hunger, people who suffer racism, people who endured/escaped war, etc, whining that “they don’t have the bandwidth to care about so many causes anymore”. Do you? ’Cause I don’t. These people see, physically, with their own eyes (and not just in news articles) a lot of suffering all the time. And yet, they don’t complain about empathy distress or what-have-you. You know what they DO talk about? Injustice. Inequality. Greed.

I’m sure people who live in REAL disadvantage socially feel emotional overwhelm too. They take breaks too, they practise whatever self-care they can to stay sane too. But do they put up emotional walls and turn a blind eye to the aftermath of social problems as a result of the “distress”? No. The answer is, objectively, a big resounding no.

This observation is very telling. ISN’T IT? Perhaps it hints at a hard-to-swallow pill some privileged people who want all the clout but none of the uncomfortable work need to hear. Namely, emotional overwhelm at the sight of suffering will only make you withdraw and deny your feelings when you know, for a fact, that you and your group are running away from the acknowledgement that your ancestors were on the wrong side of History.

THAT is what’s up. There’s no such thing as “empathy distress” leading to cold-hearted responses to suffering. That’s a mere excuse so that fake-nice people can keep the status quo intact. It’s cowardly. It’s worse than Psychopathy.

Take as long as you need to digest that.

On to the list of better alternatives, for those who are a bit lost in their practice of empathy and compassion:

List of better alternatives:

Photo by Matthew Henry on Unsplash

Before we start, a necessary caveat: nobody can be empathetic all the time, and nobody can be compassionate all the time. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have values. The world is complex, and sometimes one cause cancels out the other. This article is not about politics, and it’s not about who is right and who is wrong, but we need to get this out of the way. I’m not implying anyone is a bad person for not feeling empathy or not having compassion in a specific context (even because, if I did, I’d be a hypocrite. I don’t empathise and don’t have compassion for the enablers of social injustice, as you saw above).

What I’m saying, instead, with a big bold statement here so that you won’t miss it, is that you shouldn’t half-arse empathy or compassion. You can choose what “sides” to empathise with, and you probably have to choose which people to feel compassion with at a time (because we’re not all-seeing like a god. We’re humans)… But when you do, do it genuinely. Don’t half-arse it for attention.

Also worth mentioning: underage people shouldn’t be held by the same standards as adults with a fully-formed brain. It goes without saying, but this is the Internet, so I’m repeating the obvious, and trolls beware.

• Instead of silencing, listen quietly. A need to silence others often comes from a projected need to stay silent. Some people think it equals “not caring”. That’s not true. Perhaps you don’t know how to empathise, but that’s actually a good opportunity. An opportunity to be compassionate! Body language can help. If the person isn’t a hugger, you can think of other ways to make them comfortable. What about a cup of tea? Distractions are a bit of a stretch. (At least wait until the venting is over and the topic has changed).
• Instead of tone-policing, use “I” statements to sincerely express your surprise. The automatic conclusion that someone is overreacting usually comes from a repressed need to actively listen. People mistake active listening with “admitting you’re dumb”, when in fact that’s not true. The world is full of discoveries, and nobody is born knowing everything. Trust me: the person in need of help is most likely in need of someone with an open mind who admits they “never thought” this problem happened. The last thing they would do is judge you for incompetence. (And if they do, that could be a red flag. Still not your fault, though).
• Instead of one-upping, share on an equal level. And if your stories are genuinely worse and you’re not trying to compete, but you still feel a need to contribute, share a fictional narrative you know of that resonates; A scientific finding you read about; etc. Anything that IS on the same level/topic. There’s nothing wrong with sharing your own stories or stories you’ve read and heard about whereby the main character suffered the same thing or a very similar thing and turned out NOT to be a villain (that’s important too). The act itself is fine. Some people get sensitive to it, and this isn’t fool-proof (nothing in this list is fool-proof), but the likelihood that relatability will be successful without this undertone of competition is very high.
• Observe if the people you keep around you share your core values. And if they don’t, ask yourself why. Maybe you’re being too much of a people-pleaser, maybe you’re in an abusive relationship, etc. Keeping people around who share your core values is very important in order to practise empathy and compassion correctly, because neither can genuinely come from a fake facade you put up for survival. I say this as someone who survived living in an abusive household by putting up a fake facade. And when I talk about core values, I don’t mean details, I mean the big stuff: tradition or progress? Or what kind of middle ground EXACTLY? Agreeableness or radical honesty? Chaos or order, or what exact middle ground? Etc. When you’re able to only keep in your circles of trust people whose core values resonate with yours, you won’t even ever feel a need to shame, side with the “enemy”, or assume too much.
• Instead of resenting the person who rejected your well-meaning attempt to help, work on self-compassion and self-forgiveness. It’s very likely that you’re being too hard on yourself, since you’re depending entirely on external approval in order to “tell yourself you’re a good and caring person”. Why not just skip the part where you depend on others’ validation, and go straight to validating yourself and listening to your own needs? You can’t pour from an empty cup anyway.
• Instead of offering one-size-fits-all solutions, practise being present with the person you’re helping. Heavy reliance on standardised solutions, dogma, and other kinds of inflexibility all stem from a common root: escapism. I know it doesn’t look like escapism because you’re not actively trying to escape to a fantasy world where everything is black-or-white… but you are accidentally doing that. So, practise giving the person a blank slate they can write on, instead of pre-populating it with your ready-to-go solutions (which may not even apply to their situation after all).
• Instead of co-opting social justice slogans, try spending time with the community you want to help and learning their individual and collective stories. I know a lot of people who jump to conclusions and end up outshining the very minority they’re trying to help are actually well-meaning. The problem is, they’re a bit desperate to be seen as “the saviour” ASAP and don’t have a whole load of patience to actually do a good job at it. The best solution to that is to take the back seat and let people speak. There’s a lot you’re unaware you don’t know. Especially as an outsider to the minority (and therefore, as someone who doesn’t directly relate or feel on your bones the impact of the problems they go through), it’s important never to assume you “already know” what’s going on just because you saw third-hand accounts. Or worse, just to impress your peers. Not a good look, sorry.
• Instead of conditional empathy, you have 2 main choices: 1) be simply compassionate (see first item on this list), or 2) stay away and admit you can’t empathise with this particular group. There’s nothing evil about not empathising with EVERY GROUP EVER. It’s only natural. As long as you don’t go on a high horse and hide your inability to empathise under a facade of “well, if they didn’t do or say X I would empathise”, you’re ok. Empathy is never about fulfilling your conditions. Don’t be a karen. Empathy is about the other, not yourself.
• Instead of caring “in theory”, but doing nothing in practice… Raise awareness. Share the content created by the people you want to help, without making it about you. Help making their voices heard. Talk about it with your peers. This is always handy when there is nothing concrete you could do to contribute, and not enough intimacy to make compassion possible.

Photo by Charlie M on Unsplash

In summary: both empathy and compassion are about harmony between yourself and others.

There are people out there who preach (sometimes overtly, other times implying) that in order to have compassion and/or be empathetic, we need to take our own needs out of the equation altogether (or, to be precise, pretend to. Silence your inner child all you want, you can’t hide from it forever). This tends to backfire, because love it or hate it, human relations aren’t supposed to be hierarchical and “vertical” (ie, either YOU matter or OTHERS matter). In nature, there’s balance. It’s not natural to be a martyr hiding behind a facade of fake modesty that is actually only there to earn you admiration… Or to be an eternal “baby” receiving all the zeal and care from others. That’s a sickening, narcissistic distortion of this timeless wisdom.

I’ve seen a very worrying trend both in online and offline spaces, where people have been misinterpreting Eastern wisdom (notoriously Buddhist text) and force-fitting it into their pre-existing Western paradigm of black-and-white thinking. That’s how they come up with maxims such as “let’s carry the world’s burdens and transmute them into love and wisdom”. It may sound nice on a surface level, but lurking beneath the surface is a dangerous defense of parasitic, zero-boundaries relationships between people. That’s the very opposite of what we SHOULD be striving for, which is a world where everyone has dignity, sovereignty, and personal power, without undermining each other anymore, and learning from collective mistakes that happened in the past without vindictiveness OR denial.

Dependence and independence are on a spectrum whereby we should strive to be somewhere in the middle, not in one extreme or the other. These fake gurus are in favour of going all the way towards dependence, defending completely symbiotic social relations that only serve to inflate the [spiritual, helper’s] ego of the practitioner and keep the recipient in perpetual dependence, discouraged from “growing up and walking with their own feet”. This, in turn, also serves to covertly inferiorise the sufferers of the world, creating the picture-perfect real-life iteration of a “white saviour” movie.

Let’s just not.

I know it’s easier (and takes less work) to assume that tending to our own emotional needs when we’re feeling incapable of helping others because we’re falling back into old habits is “selfish”. I know there’s a common narrative that selfishness is the main cause of suffering in the world (otherwise, compassion wouldn’t be the solution to it — a false dichotomy, but it fools the lazy-minded). If you take a careful look at Buddhist scriptures WITHOUT leaning on your pre-existing worldview, though, you’ll see that actually, that’s a misunderstanding. That’s not to say selfishness is good or irrelevant, but what I AM saying is that it’s a consequence — not a cause — of the predicament we’re in.

It’s not that “the villains” in your chosen story are selfish and therefore they cause harm. On the contrary: the villains are are empty-hearted, which causes them to be harmful, and run away from the consequences of this act by means of selfishness. I mean… there’s a reason WHY we find ourselves first, then (and only then!) we can meet others at their level.

But this is all very complex and requires a great deal of open-mindedness to grasp. That’s why so many Western teachers misunderstand the lesson… And some, dare I say, twist it on purpose to suit their covertly authoritarian agenda.

Perhaps there’s a better way forward.