
Your Most Important Skill: Empathy - nikunjk
http://chadfowler.com/blog/2014/01/19/empathy/
======
irishcoffee
I'm sure this will get buried at this point, but I have experienced very
negative side effects from my ability to empathize with people. Theres a term
(which I find silly) that categorizes people as 'empaths' which I gathered
means one can almost "link" emotionally with people. While I fid the term
silly, i have experienced almost crippling emotional pain when someone close
to me is hurting. I hate it, I wish it would go away.

My one friend, brilliant engineer. Has brain cancer. I sit a desk away from
him. When he is upset, I can hardly function. My ex-SO, when upset, I can feel
the anger and sadness. It destroys me to feel that someone feels that way
toward me. Its truly awful and I wish this didn't happen to me. My siblings
growing up, I was able to (and I'm not proud of this at all) basically
manipulate them into doing whatever I wanted, because I was able to understand
how they felt.

People tell me all the time "you're such likeable person, everyone likes you.
That'll take you far." My boss said it not a month ago, which took me by
surprise, as I don't care for my boss at all.

I wish there was a spectrum opposite the autism spectrum. I don't think I am
at all unique in this, and I wish I could talk to others experiencing the same
kinds of things.

~~~
joe_the_user
The article is ridiculous really.

If anything, the "skills" demanded by the present economy are those of a high-
functioning psychopath [1]. That is, total lack of empathy but with a modest
ability to fake it.

[1] [http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/09/10/1015320/-Why-
High-F...](http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/09/10/1015320/-Why-High-
Functioning-Psychopaths-Rule-The-World)

~~~
wozniacki
Thanks for saying what I had on my mind. In fact I was perusing the thread to
find more voices that agree with your sentiment, spot on.

The following is a comment of mine on HN from nearly an year ago. It was made
in response to a post on what the author learned from Steve Jobs in matters of
negotiation [a]. It stands true today as it did then. Every time the topic of
empathy and its relevance to startup success or success at large comes up, I
feel a strong need to revisit this comment. Sadly, I have a feeling I will be
posting this for some time to come, in the foreseeable future because I think
most people - if they are being genuine - seem to be under the false
assumption that somehow there are ways to win in the valley or elsewhere by
being anything but ruthless :

\-- -- --

I think every time the issue of Steve Jobs's maniacal side comes up I feel
obliged to bring this up:

Steve Wozniak on Steve Jobs:

    
    
       I was inspired by Stanford intellectuals like 
       Jim Warren talking this way at the club. Lee 
       Felsenstein wanted computers to help in things 
       like the antiwar marches he'd orchestrated in 
       Oakland and I was inspired by the fact that 
       these machines could help stop wars. Others in 
       the club had working models of this computer 
       before Jobs knew it existed. He came down one 
       week and I took him to show him the club, not 
       the reverse. He saw it as a businessman. It as 
       I who told Jobs the good things these machines 
       could do for humanity, not the reverse. I 
       begged Steve that we donate the first Apple I 
       to a woman who took computers into elementary 
       schools but he made me buy it and donate it 
       myself. [1]
    

The contrast in the personalities of Jobs and Wozniak could not be more
clearer.

However I agree with first part of what toddmorey has said below:

    
    
      3. Most importantly, being an asshole may help 
      great ideas get powered through, but it's not 
      the only way. 
    

The latter part, I'm unsure and circumspect about:

    
    
      The people I most admire have found
      success while still being amazing human beings
      to work beside.
    

In the valley and elsewhere, I think this is increasingly not the case.

I think we should stop telling kids that life rewards the passionate and the
skilled.

By rewards I certainly do not mean some inner calm or contentment coming from
indulging in what you love. I mean the conventional rewards of recognition,
admiration and remuneration.

Life is rigged in favor of the opportunists. The schemers, hustlers and the
witty-talkers. But certainly not the plainspoken and the adept.

This is what many kids who have grown up on the stories of Steve Jobs and the
valley lore surrounding many other iconic founders, will take away as their
guiding principles.

They will grow up thinking, "Life rewards the unabashedly ravenous, merciless
and ruthless blokes among us. Life does not spare the dignified, the pleasant
or the mild-mannered." There is nothing to suggest otherwise.

No matter how you dice it, your conscience tells you that this is more than a
bit disenchanting if not unfair.

[1]

[http://i.imgur.com/a1I9DTs.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/a1I9DTs.jpg)

[https://plus.google.com/+CarmsPerez/posts/GnVTvQNgvpf](https://plus.google.com/+CarmsPerez/posts/GnVTvQNgvpf)

\-- -- --

[a] [http://heidiroizen.tumblr.com/post/80368150370/what-i-
learne...](http://heidiroizen.tumblr.com/post/80368150370/what-i-learned-
negotiating-with-steve-jobs)

~~~
karmacondon
I don't think I agree with your interpretation of that story or the
conclusions you've drawn from it.

Not wanting to donate the first apple II or use it to "help stop wars" doesn't
make Steve Jobs a bad person or demonstrate a lack of empathy. He could have
easily understood exactly where Wozniack was coming from, but have drawn
different conclusions about what was right. The things that people associate
with being "good" aren't always the best indicators of morality or motivation.
Someone can be a good person without ever giving money to charity.

And before we crush the dreams of children, it should be pointed out that
musicians, artists and athletes are heavily rewarded for their passion and
skill every day. So are many successful entrepreneurs. It's our responsibility
to chose the right heroes, for ourselves and for the next generation. There's
a Judas for every Jesus. We get to choose which one we want to be.

I'm no Steve Jobs fanboy, but describing him as "unabashedly ravenous,
merciless and ruthless" is far beyond the pale. Don't let a few rumors and out
of context stories color your judgement of an entire human life. Empathy,
right?

------
grownseed
This is a refreshing article considering the mainstream upsell of the selfish
"cool" stone-hearted asshole.

Anywho, I used to be one of those kids with little to no capacity for empathy.
I wasn't horrible, I would never have hurt anyone, but I had a really hard
time relating (nor was I trying to). My pre-school teacher mentioned to my
parents that something was off with me (they just thought I was a weird kid),
it seemed I had no notion of social feedback, putting me somewhere on the
autism spectrum.

Turns out I was going completely deaf, which on the long run ended up being a
blessing in disguise (also because I more or less recovered my hearing later
on).

Being deaf, you learn to read people as if they came with an instruction
booklet, it comes very naturally. I saw how other people had those reactions,
emotions showing in their faces, their body language and so on, and how it
affected others. I started feigning it and playing with it, effectively
manipulating people into reacting the way I wanted them to.

As time moved on, some of these things started coming naturally and it soon
hit me like a brick: the best way to get things from others is to understand
where they stand emotionally and to show reciprocation and support, i.e.
empathy.

It often makes me wonder whether empathy is purely an acquired trait, or if
some people have a strong predisposition for it.

The one major drawback of empathy, in my opinion, is feeling utterly useless
when you see other people repeatedly hurting themselves, usually thinking
they're doing the right thing. It pains me, deeply, but I suppose it's a
necessary side-effect.

~~~
erodingvar
> the best way to get things from others is to understand where they stand
> emotionally and to show reciprocation and support, i.e. empathy.

This is the dangerous line this article is suggestive toward: empathy as a
tool for manipulative gain.

I wonder if someone truly naturally capable of understanding differing
perspectives would even write such an article. It sounds more like a robot
discovering a trick they can utilize to score points.

I think empathy is a sense. When I read some people talking about it in this
way, it feels like deaf people thinking they're able to hear music because
they found a trick of feeling the speaker's bass.

~~~
grownseed
I can't help but feel a little offended by your reply but I think I can also
understand where you're coming from. To give some perspective, hearing the
bass is not a trick, it's your way towards understanding how to listen, or
rather feel music differently. Bass is the most obvious thing for most deaf
people, so it helps you realize "how the whole thing works". You then
gradually realize than you do feel the entire spectrum through your skin,
bones, etc., you just have to dedicate a certain amount of effort to it. For
reference, I'm the only musician in my family, I got interested in playing
piano at age five, had a innate sense for basic chords, while having
absolutely no hearing.

~~~
dang
> I can't help but feel a little offended by your reply but I think I can also
> understand where you're coming from.

It's not hard to see how you might feel offended by a comment that took the
very experience you were talking about (deafness) and used it to contrive an
example of not one, but two repugnant qualities. Yet instead of lashing out,
you channeled that into understanding, while still honoring your own reaction.
That takes both subtlety and skill. Thanks for giving us an example of the
thing we're talking about.

~~~
simonebrunozzi
And I didn't even notice, so thanks for pointing that out. Agreed, great
example.

------
trevelyan
This blog post is factually incorrect in the sense that it contradicts the
current state-of-the-art in psychology research, which comes from the
regression analysis of statistically-identifiable personality traits against
actual career outcomes in repeated large-n survey research.

Specifically, empathy is associated with "agreeability" in the five-factor
OCEAN model (the dominant scientific model of personality traits in
psychology). In this model, agreeability has been repeatedly shown to
correlate with worse career outcomes and lower professional satisfaction over
time.

This is not to say that being an asshole is good, but if we are measuring
career performance in terms of the traditional metrics that matter to most
people (promotion and pay), the statistical reality is that high levels of
empathy don't move the needle in the direction people conventionally assume
they want.

~~~
coderzach
Googling didn't turn up anything on a link between empathy and agreeableness.
Only a study that had both words in the title.

~~~
trevelyan
From Wikipedia:

"Agreeableness is a personality trait manifesting itself in individual
behavioral characteristics that are perceived as kind, sympathetic,
cooperative, warm and considerate.... People scoring low on agreeableness are
generally less concerned with others' well-being and report having less
empathy...."

and:

"Agreeableness is usually associated with a lower income as opposed to
aggressive employees who are found to have a higher income."

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreeableness](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreeableness)

~~~
JamesSwift
To save others the time, here are the Wikipedia sources for the quotes listed:

[https://web.archive.org/web/20131217221700/http://www.workpl...](https://web.archive.org/web/20131217221700/http://www.workplaceoptions.com/news/press-
releases/press-
release.asp?id=B20EA2B071254FDD8DC8&title=%20Agreeable%20Workers%20Viewed%20as%20More%20Productive)

[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886908...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886908002195)

~~~
rpedroso
The first source is a press release from what appears to be an HR company
which attempts to debunk the claim that agreeableness correlates with lower
income based on a survey they contracted through a polling agency.

That survey portends to show that "almost half of American workers (45
percent) believe employees with more agreeable personalities (those who seem
more tolerant, less controlling, or more willing to consider co-workers’
ideas) are more successful in the workplace". There are a lot of problems with
this statement...

(1) Less than half of American workers actually agreed with the stated result.
(2) The study survey was carried out by a local North Carolina polling agency
with no data available as far as I can tell. (3) Believing that 'agreeable'
persons are more successful in the workplace does not contradict the finding
that 'agreeableness' correlates with low incomes -- as in many cases, what
many individuals believe does not necessarily correspond to the truth.

The study they apparently contracted the survey in response to was called, "Do
Nice Guys – and Gals – Really Finish Last? The Joint Effects of Sex and
Agreeableness on Income" [1]. Needless to say, you'll want to skip the press
release and go straight to that paper.

I am unable to read the second source, thanks to Elsevier's brutal lockdown of
scientific research. That being said, I'm hesitant about buying into the
thread parent's claim that TFA "contradicts the current state-of-the-art in
psychology research" given that I have only been able to find that one study
purporting to link "agreeability" with lowered income.

[1] [http://www3.nd.edu/~cba/Nice--
JPSPInPress.pdf](http://www3.nd.edu/~cba/Nice--JPSPInPress.pdf)

~~~
trevelyan
I linked to Wikipedia because it properly contextualizes the five-factor model
and somewhat accurately summarizes the research. If you need academic sources
try searching for the following terms (or some variation) at Google scholar:

five-factor agreeableness salary

I get 10,000 results for that search and the teasers show the overwhelming
trend of the findings ("a significant negative relationship between
agreeableness and salary", "agreeableness is negatively related to initial
career success", etc). An online readable version of the paper you mention as
being inaccessible is the first result for a Google search on the exact title.
Subsequent results do seem to be either media coverage or paywall spam.

[http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?ar...](http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1025&context=cahrs_researchlink)

~~~
rpedroso
The paper you linked is the one I was able to read -- I linked the full text
in my previous post. The paper I was unable to access was "Development and
Validation of an International English Big-Five Mini-Markers" which I was
interested in for its apparent validation of the model at a more general
level.

I peered through the Google Scholar results this morning, and I did indeed
find several approachable articles on the subject. For those interested:

[1] "The five-factor model of personality and career success"
[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001879100...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001879100917573)

[2] "The Big Five Personality Dimensions and Job Performance: A Meta-Analysis"
[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991....](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x/abstract)

[3] "The effects of personality on earnings"
[http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167487004...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167487004000546)

[4] "Ability and Personality Predictors of Salary, Perceived Job Success, and
Perceived Career Success in the Initial Career Stage"
[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2008....](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2008.00435.x/abstract?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false)

The results are varying, [1] and [2] confirm, while [2] seems to disconfirm
(haven't read that one beyond the abstract yet as I need to go to work). [3]
appears to confirm but only finds this relationship holds true for women.

In any case, thanks 'trevelyan for pointing me towards some interesting
weekend reading!

------
narrator
Empathy is a skill and a talent. I've had close personal relationships with a
few great salesmen. It's incredible to watch the difference between someone
who is gifted in this regard and someone who isn't. It can be worked on, but
some people definitely have a natural talent.

Great salesmen are always in a good mood, never negative, never criticize,
never go off on random tangents and know what the other person is going to say
even before they say it. They can tell immediately how a target market will
react to anything in a product or offering. It's like they can easily put
themselves in the other person's mindset to understand their gut emotional
reaction to things. I only dream of being that good. The best I can do is to
clumsily emulate it, but it requires concentration to pay attention to
everything, it's like speaking a foreign language but never quite thinking in
it.

~~~
euske
I think empathy needs several things. But above all, it needs one's brain
power, or smartness.

In my understanding, empathy is pretty much a skill to emulate the other
person's thinking. There's a discussion about Kolmogorov Complexity, which
says to emulate an already complex system you need an even more complex
system, which means a bigger brain. Of course human minds are not that simple,
but I think this is onto something.

In addition to smartness, you'd probably need a patience and some serenity to
react (or not react) to the situation accordingly.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
> I think empathy needs several things. But above all, it needs one's brain
> power, or smartness.

I thought empathy had more to do with the part of your brain that is able to
pick up on facial expressions, body language, and spoken tone ("social
queues") to make inferences that are not otherwise explicit. Mild autism
suppresses this part of the brain, meaning you could have someone who is very
"smart" but lacks empathy and social skills.

And of course it can be learned, which is part of the treatment for mild
autism, but many (most?) normal people are able to tap into something much
more instinctive.

------
Mahn
I find the amount of people that have a complete and utter lack of empathy
staggering. Average people really couldn't care less if someone they don't
know is hurt as long as they have what they want; coming across somebody truly
empathetic is really a rarity. I've always found this rather depressing.

~~~
toomuchtodo
I'm not quite sure how to fix this problem. I'm empathetic (I believe) because
I've had terrible things happen to me in my life. I'm not sure _everyone_ has
to go through terrible things to be empathetic, and I worry about what my
children would have to go through to have that same level of empathy.

How do you teach something where you have to feel it to understand?

~~~
GauntletWizard
I'm no longer empathetic, because whenever I felt bad for people because
terrible things happened to them, I saw them repeat mistakes. Empathy is
behavior that only works if those around you are trustworthy. Societal empathy
destroys the requirement to be so; and therefore makes it dangerous for
individuals and society to be empathetic.

~~~
coderzach
> Empathy is behavior that only works if those around you are trustworthy.

I would argue that this isn't true, so long as you make decisions rationally
and not emotionally.

Sharing an emotional state with someone can be a valuable tool in
understanding them. Just don't let this shared emotional state cloud your
decisions.

------
Kalium
One of the odds things I've noticed about empathy is that a great many people
are very bad at recognizing it in others. Empathy doesn't just look like
playing madlibs to the tune of "You feel $FEELING. That's $ADJECTIVE!".

And beware of anyone who calls for empathy but displays none for their
audience. That's just manipulation.

~~~
serve_yay
Indeed. It does seem that people who talk about empathy will sometimes really
mean they want you to agree with whatever they think, or whatever their
version of empathy is.

Not that I would accuse TFA of that -- it's explicit about "knowing your
enemy" and listening to someone you are disagreeing with.

~~~
nostrademons
It's not incompatible for someone to have a lot of empathy and still just want
you to agree with whatever they think. The real test is whether you find
yourself _actually_ agreeing with what they think. If you do, they have
successfully gotten into your head and performed inception. If you don't, they
bungled it.

~~~
serve_yay
Well, what I mean to say is that talk about empathy is sometimes talk about
"just agree with me and stop with all your opinions otherwise". Which is of
course the opposite of envy. I don't really understand about the inception
stuff.

~~~
nostrademons
Then I fail at empathy. ;-)

I'm saying that being able to communicate your ideas requires that you step
into the mind of the listener - i.e, empathy. If you do this successfully, you
express them in a language that is already familiar to him, and so ( _to him_
) it seems like you're saying something obvious. If you have to resort to
"just agree with me and stop with all your opinions otherwise", then you don't
actually understand how he thinks or how to reach him, i.e. you have failed at
empathy.

We agree, but I am trying to add a little extra detail and a meta-example to
the discussion. :-)

------
wonnage
Incoming armchair psychiatrist...

I think any perceived universal lack of empathy is more a projected personal
lack of empathy. I think that if you assume and expect the worst from others
you'll in turn hold yourself to the same standard. Everyone's been in a
bystander position before, where they knew they could do something but didn't;
this is empathy without action, which is mistakenly labelled as a lack of
empathy.

Hence the problem is not that we can't empathize but that there's no
obligation to do anything, which reflects a general preference towards
identifying and branding over the actual work of change and action.

~~~
Puts
Sometimes I joke about people and someone corrects me telling me what a douche
I am. But lately I've started thinking that maybe It's easy for me to say
these things because just because I say someone for example looks a certain
way does not genuinely mean I think that person IS that way.

And then when people correct me, they are actually reacting on their own
prejudgements and projecting it on my joke.

------
Spearchucker
I can read anyone like a book. I also know why I have this skill - my mother
had a mean temper. No violence, but a lot of screaming and banging doors. So I
learnt quickly to measure the temperature of a room. Weird, and cool, that
that aspect of growing up produced such a useful skill. _Really_ weird though,
was discovering how few have this ability.

~~~
Jem
I too can read anyone like a book, and I'd never really thought about why
before but my mum also had a temper and I grew up with 2 separate abusers and
left home to a 3rd. I've never considered it a skill before, or indeed
realised that it wasn't that common.

I actually find it debilitating at times, because it can come out in weird
ways. I will sometimes fixate on situations or even individuals and feel vast
amounts of pain for them, even carrying massive guilt for things I cannot fix.
(I am seeing a counsellor.)

~~~
kaybe
I've seen arguments that this is (part of?) the reason why women are generally
more empathic than men.

------
spacemanmatt
True story: I took a parenting course titled Redirecting Childrens Behavior
(great course, BTW) from an instructor who also taught an enterprise-oriented
course called Redirecting Corporate Behavior. In class, I was curious and had
to ask what the difference was. Her response was, "They're the same. People
are the same at work as at home."

~~~
hammock
Who was the instructor?

~~~
spacemanmatt
[http://redirectionconnection.com/](http://redirectionconnection.com/)

------
brianstorms
I'm glad to see this sort of article in here.

However I would suggest it could be argued that compassion is the bigger skill
and talent here, and that it includes empathy.

The etymological root of "compassion" is "to suffer with", to feel someone's
pain. To walk in their shoes. To see their perspective. To breathe their air.

When there is compassion there is a better user experience. Apple used to have
a lot of compassion but like other recent HN posts have discussed, Apple's
software of late suggests they're losing it . . . fast.

One's entire daily activity, including operating vehicles (be they two wheels
or more), could benefit from more compassion. Nations would benefit from a
more compassionate media. Not to menion more compassionate politicians.

For me, compassion is the thing. It's what the world needs now.

------
xacaxulu
I've seen, 9 definitions of empathy on this thread so far. That might be a
place to start :)

~~~
electronvolt
I think there's a lot of associated cultural baggage and expectations that
come with our notions about empathy. This muddies the discussion, somewhat:
people seem to be conflating the idea of understanding what other people are
feeling (and why they feel that way--which doesn't require feeling anything),
feeling what other people are feeling (which doesn't necessarily require
understanding), and a host of other ideas. (e.g. influencing how other people
are feeling--which may require the first to some extent)

------
bambax
> _The reason crowds of people exhaust me is that I am constantly trying to
> read and understand the feelings and motivations of those around me._

That describes me perfectly.

But there is a general confusion between "empathy" and "compassion".

I have a lot of the former and very little of the latter; I understand what
other people experience, but I don't really "feel" it -- I don't suffer when
they do.

(I don't know what this says about me -- that's just how I am).

Professionally this has served me well; I'm an independent contractor but the
core of what I do is translate what people say to one another. When designing
a system it's amazing how users think they have expressed their needs clearly
when the tech guys understood a completely different thing; this happens even
when everything is written down and formally accepted, etc. The way to fight
this problem is to describe the consequences of every choice: if you do this
this way, then you won't be able to do that other thing.

Personally, empathy without compassion is more of a flaw. In a conversation I
usually know what the other person is going to say, so I answer their
questions before they finish asking, and most people don't like it. Or they
feel they have found a sympathetic ear and start telling me a lot about
themselves, which gets boring quickly.

Small talk with people you know just a little, terrifies me. I have learned to
talk about the weather -- that works most of the time, but only for so long
(but the conversation can start anew every day).

I wonder if I shared too much.

------
joshfraser
A lack of empathy is the source of many of the worlds problems.

Would we be care more about US drone attacks if we had friends or family
living in Afghanistan or Iran? Would we be so cavalier about prison rape if it
had happened to us or a close friend?

These things occur when we distance ourselves from the people who are
affected. When you look at all the injustice in the world, so much of it would
evaporate if the people responsible simply had more empathy.

------
bootload
_" Why should you explicitly work to enhance your ability to empathize with
others?"_

There's a reason why empathy is declining and I think it's related to the
disconnect individuals have when moving from situations where the _" We"_ has
been superseded by the _" I"_.

If you live, work with a number of individuals working together, where
everyone has particular skills and roles then find yourself in a situation
where your existence is on the line, co-operation will beat individuals. You
see this in nature where big cats hunt in teams, with combat troops and to an
extent startups. Empathy is a by-product, because if you don't help them out,
you fail.

People can get a taste of this playing competitive team sports.

~~~
verbin217
Nope. That's the wrong explanation for empathy. This won't be popular. Empathy
forms in environments where individual outcomes are determined by group
perception. Everyone romantacizes it's benevolence but it's really all about
manipulating people. Empathy is actually on the rise. Compassion on the other
hand...

~~~
bootload
_" Empathy forms in environments where individual outcomes are determined by
group perception."_

Can you give some examples or cites for this.

I can give lots of real-world examples where self concern is second and group
put first. Animals in nature and humans in groups. This is from an
anthropology observational point of view.

 _" Oh so you were perceiving them then? ;)"_

Animals in nature, yes. Humans in real-life under stress, yes.

~~~
verbin217
> I can give lots of real-world examples where self concern is second and
> group put first.

Oh so you were perceiving them then? ;)

------
tek-cyb-org
Wow this is so me. I feel u totally. Unfortunately my "Sensitivity" has caused
me to become somewhat introverted yet still able to get through life and doing
pretty well. Great article, great to know im not the only one out there.
thanks

------
actf
I really enjoyed the book: Nonviolent Communication: A Language of Life by
Marshall Rosenberg - which despite the title, is actually very relevant to
this topic.

I picked it up after hearing a number of very positive reviews, and despite my
skepticism, I now understand why it's so highly praised.

I'd try to provide a brief summary, but I know I wouldn't do it justice. I
will however say that it's almost certainly one of, if not the best, book I've
ever read on improving interpersonal communication and relationships.

The author has a phd in psychology, so the advice has some real science
backing it up too.

~~~
Argorak
I also can't give a short summary, but one thing about the book struck me:
it's a very egoistic book.

He describes in the very beginning that his reason to learn these techniques
was to find out how he can get his wishes fulfilled, easier and with less
friction. His conclusion is that seriously caring about others wishes and
wants is one of the best ways to do that. He also tries to do that without
being manipulative.

------
realrocker
Sure. I think it's important to empathise with people. Especially in a
professional setup. But how do you empathise with the lazy ones who would come
to a meeting unprepared, hoping to get a quick tutorial on the subject on the
go. Or the condescenders who would assume their expertise on a subject renders
all other opinions invalid. In those cases empathy is actually cruel to the
remaining who do deserve it. Empathy like every other human emotion isn't
really universal.

------
dschiptsov
"Social Intelligence" again?

Btw, empathy by itself (if we think of it as so-called mirror neurons based
machinery of shaped by evolutionary forces reciprocal altruism) is a "glue" of
any social formation, so there is nothing special about it.

If we think of it as an "ability to feel other people's feels" (and reflect
and react on them) - then it is OK for some context and not so for another. At
least, in a harsh, competitive even hostile environments it is rather a
vulnerability.

So, inside any kind of social organization, be it a flock of animals or a
village community or a company competing in a crowded market - empathy is what
holds it together. It is also the foundation of the social aspect of some
religions, but why should one pile up more abstract concepts on top of a
simple biological phenomena?

And, of course, it is not _the_ most important skill, given that the social
aspect of a human life is, indeed, important, but not the most important. Any
so-called "introvert" (with is a last-century meme) will tell you that.

There are people, who would say, that independent thinking, not being a docile
sheeple, conditioned by social environment, etc. are more important virtues in
life.

There are reasons, why intellectual practices and spiritual growth requires a
solitude.

So, high empathy is important for a social worker or a priest or any kind of
"manipulator", but I don't buy that it is the most important skill for a
techie or an "introvert". Yes, it helps when we have to visit a public place,
but why should we make other people as our primary occupation?

------
bl00djack
Love this! Lately, I have been suffering from Impostor Syndrome and there are
times I felt like I am doing everything wrong and I even started to question
my empathy. Anyway, great article!

------
pflanze
Previous discussion:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7084299](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7084299)

------
normloman
I love the message of this article. Yet I'm also disappointed we needed an
article to tell us this. How is having empathy controversial?

------
coryl
Great design and UX comes from a deep understanding and empathy of people
(including yourself). If I feel your pain, I can help address it.

------
Puts
Some here seems to think that introverts can't be empathic which ironically
seems like a very hostile attitude towards fellow people.

------
jraedisch
Another side effect of involuntary empathy for me is tending to forgive
(sometimes too?!) easily - since I understand, or at least like to believe I
understand almost everything as a result of hard to change traits and
motivations. Whenever somebody is blamed for something I immediately try to
explain why her or his acting is understandable. Empathy might also lower my
belief in free will.

------
jheriko
its good to promote this. thank you for advocating this viewpoint. :)

although as much as i identify a failure at empathy as a serious weakness i
have, i continually fail to do anything about it and constantly put my foot in
my mouth and offend others.

maybe i just need a lot more practice...

------
edgarvaldes
I think the most important job-related skill is Social Networking.

~~~
thomasatethose
do you mean like social media or in person?

~~~
edgarvaldes
Face to face.

------
perdunov
My empathy is blocked by disgust towards most people, although I am very
empathetic.

I am not sure what it is that slight or strong disgust I feel towards almost
all people. Maybe it is a psychiatric condition.

------
theRhino
become a stoic, practice all the virtues, not just empathy

your brain will thank you for it

------
grkovalev
i tried it, did not work for me

------
timwaagh
demands exceeds supply. even socially inept lazy aspies with mediocre coding
skills, who'd normally be the last that would get hired (like me) have
programming careers. any success you may experience is not likely to have
anything to do with your soft skills.

~~~
eropple
I don't agree. In my experience, somebody who can't deal effectively with
people will get hired for technical skills and be largely put on the slow
track where the benefits of their technical expertise can be reaped while not
having to deal with the negatives of their social weaknesses. (I was that guy
once. I got better.)

One thing I've gotten better at--with a derivative that's much steeper than
the rise in my technical skills over time--is a kind of empathy that I can use
in a professional context. What I've found that this lets me do (this can also
be read "forces me to do") is understand others' needs and actually _care_
about them at a level that makes it important for me to do the right thing.
People can tell when you give a shit about them, and they're more likely to
entrust you with responsibility even when you may not be, from a technical or
historical perspective, the best candidate. Not just because they like you,
but because they can have confidence in your desire to do well, with their
interests in mind. That matters.

------
peterwwillis
Book suggestion thread: Go.

Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ
([http://www.amazon.com/Emotional-Intelligence-Matter-More-
Tha...](http://www.amazon.com/Emotional-Intelligence-Matter-More-
Than/dp/055338371X))

~~~
pvaldes
Emotional intelligence is only as good as healthy your social environment will
be. If you work or live with toxic or neurotic people neither a great sense of
social intelligente nor to be able to feel like them will help you. To be
smarter could.

