Empathy

I don't know if I'd call it a sudden realization, or just a final clicking into place of a name to describe something I've sensed for a while, but empathy is it.

em - path - y [em-puh-thee]

1.	the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another.

2.	the imaginative ascribing to an object, as a natural object or work of art, feelings or attitudes present in oneself: By means of empathy, a great painting becomes a mirror of the self.

I read a Damn Interesting entry a few weeks back about sociopaths and the notions brought out in that article have been floating around in my mind ever since. The critical thing to take away from the article is that it isn't about violence, it's simply a description of someone who lacks the natural human ability to relate to others. According to the article 1 in 100 men and 1 in 300 women have this deficiency. Perhaps manifested to a lesser degree, but I think the number is quite a bit higher. Let me see if I can explain why.

E-mail threads are generated by my coworkers that convey some sense of outrage about some news item they read. The threads have run the gamut of hot-button issues and also some more obscure things as well. The e-mail gets sent to as few as three of us or as many as ten depending on the sender and the topic (25 people or so work where I work). I find myself on the receiving end of a large number of these though I have no idea how many I have been excluded from as the results of my responses. Either way it is a sort of joke now that if I don't respond right away it generally means I'm typing a long discourse (rant) rebutting whatever it is that the general group has decided upon. Group dynamics being what they are, inevitably 90% of the respondents heartily agree with the tone of the original e-mailer, and I'm left to take the alternate route. Also inevitably it places me firmly into the role of 'bleeding heart liberal'.

The last of these was regarding the case of an army sniper that had been given 10 years in prison for killing an innocent Iraqi who stumbled on the soldier's hiding place. The soldier apparently spent some effort covering up the facts of the case, making it look like the Iraqi had been a threat. (a news article regarding the story is here, though this one is more detailed than the one included in the original thread). By the time I had a chance to respond to the thread, several people had already agreed with the sentiments of the person who sent the original e-mail, which was that the soldier had been treated unfairly, and that in war collateral damage was just one of those things.

Well, that really pissed me off. Not only were these people making judgments about the fairness of a jury trial based on a 4 paragraph newspaper article, they seemed to adopt some sort of nationalist zeal reflexively in response to an American being convicted for killing an Iraqi. One person did write to say that there was too little info in the article to know what really happened and that it would suck to have been on the jury. My response acknowledged the reasonable sentiments of that person, and then went into a gentle rant about the notion of collateral damage, the fact that we've put this soldier into a position where something like this could happen, the fact that the Iraqi was dead (forever), and that the jury had the option of giving the soldier anywhere between life in prison or acquittal and their choice was far closer to acquittal than life in prison.

As so often happens, a couple of the recipients responded in general agreement with my sentiments, and the others, especially the sender goes silent. Either they think I'm a self-righteous asshole or I've shamed them for not thinking things through before expressing outrage. I'm ok with either of those responses, though since they continue to send me similar e-mails and get similar responses, I'm not sure how much of an asshole I'm being or how effective my rebuttals are.

There have been similar, though longer running and recurring, threads about illegal immigration. Inevitably this involves someone sending me some link or set of facts that are easily debunked and me going off about how virtually all of the arguments against illegal immigration and the problems it is causing are wildly overblown and are really a thin mask to hide an ugly xenophobia. (and I know what to do about xenophobes) The last of these was debunked via this Snopes article.

Luckily, my friends outside of work are intelligent enough not to be sucked into and forward me the sort of crap that sends me scurrying to Snopes to shoot down. But lots of people are sending each other this bullshit and are working themselves into a lather over crap, or without ever considering the other side of the argument. It's infuriating, and something that the internet and e-mail has made too easy.

What has been slowly dawning on me is that a significant majority of people (everyone at work who sends me things to rebut is college educated and an otherwise reasonable person who shows no tendency towards any particular thoughtlessness) lack the ability to see the world from any viewpoint other than their own, or the one presented to them in whatever has gotten their hackles up. Clearly education isn't the reason, at least not structured education such as it exists in this country, but something is sorely lacking, and it is the cause of an awful lot of bad in the world. Perhaps it's just simple-minded and reflexive, but it sure feels like these people are completely without empathy.

I never am going to be an Iraqi killed by a sniper, but I sure as hell can imagine what a horrible event it would be for his family. I can also imagine how terrible it would be to have been the soldier in the story. There's no good side to be on, but there are two easily understood and justifiable sides. I'm not sure why this isn't apparent to most people. It seems like a sort of global prejudice, they adopt the position that satisfies their specific set of facts and views and don't waste even a second considering alternatives. It's infuriating.

Clearly this is expandable to an almost limitless degree, but I won't bother, other than to quote Depeche Mode (didn't see that coming did you?), "People are people so why should it be, that you and I should get along so awfully." Yup, people are people, everywhere.