claro
@clare
9 Years1,000+ Posts
Comments: 73 · Posts: 1009 · Topics: 30
Empathic narcissism, it's a thing ..
What Is Empathic Narcissism and How It Manifests
Empathic narcissism involves individuals who understand others' emotions but use this insight manipulatively for self-gain. They may seem caring but often lack genuine emotional connection, seeking admiration or control rather than authentic support. Recognizing these traits helps in understanding complex relational behaviors and emotional dynamics.
This video explains the concept of performative empathy in narcissism:
Key Characteristics
Strategic Empathy: They recognize emotions to better manipulate situations, often displaying "perfect" or "too good to be true" empathy to gain trust.
Performative Kindness: Can perform kind acts for an audience or to build a "manipulation bank," using past good deeds to justify later harmful behavior.
Inconsistent Support: May show empathy in public or for strangers (macro-empathy) but neglect those close to them, or "turn off" their empathy when it's inconvenient.
Lack of Genuine Care: While they might understand feelings, they don't truly share or prioritize them; their actions are self-serving, not altruistic.
Cognitive vs. Emotional Empathy: They often possess cognitive empathy (understanding) but lack emotional empathy (feeling with someone), or they choose not to act on it.
Strategic Empathy: They recognize emotions to better manipulate situations, often displaying "perfect" or "too good to be true" empathy to gain trust.
Performative Kindness: Can perform kind acts for an audience or to build a "manipulation bank," using past good deeds to justify later harmful behavior.
Inconsistent Support: May show empathy in public or for strangers (macro-empathy) but neglect those close to them, or "turn off" their empathy when it's inconvenient.
Lack of Genuine Care: While they might understand feelings, they don't truly share or prioritize them; their actions are self-serving, not altruistic.
Cognitive vs. Emotional Empathy: They often possess cognitive empathy (understanding) but lack emotional empathy (feeling with someone), or they choose not to act on it.
Posted by clare
Key Characteristics
Strategic Empathy: They recognize emotions to better manipulate situations, often displaying "perfect" or "too good to be true" empathy to gain trust.
Performative Kindness: Can perform kind acts for an audience or to build a "manipulation bank," using past good deeds to justify later harmful behavior.
Inconsistent Support: May show empathy in public or for strangers (macro-empathy) but neglect those close to them, or "turn off" their empathy when it's inconvenient.
Lack of Genuine Care: While they might understand feelings, they don't truly share or prioritize them; their actions are self-serving, not altruistic.
Cognitive vs. Emotional Empathy: They often possess cognitive empathy (understanding) but lack emotional empathy (feeling with someone), or they choose not to act on it.
Cannot emphasize the "performative" part enough!
Here's an article for further reading:
https://www.theedgetreatment.com/empathetic-narcissism-definition-traits-and-coping-strategies/
'Cognitive' empathy is not genuine empathy or compassion.
https://www.theedgetreatment.com/empathetic-narcissism-definition-traits-and-coping-strategies/
'Cognitive' empathy is not genuine empathy or compassion.
That was 100% me for a long time. The crazy part is it was mostly subconscious. I never woke up thinking "I'm going to fuck people up today." But in moments I felt wronged and deceived I would start subconsciously manipulating people. Sometimes it would even branch out to people who were innocent, because I'd bottle up past trauma.
Once I was aware I was extreamly good at understanding then manipulating my environment on an emotional level, I started to control myself and word things with caution. Naturally I'm like that even when I dont realize it so its important for me to be fully self aware when speaking to people.
Once I was aware I was extreamly good at understanding then manipulating my environment on an emotional level, I started to control myself and word things with caution. Naturally I'm like that even when I dont realize it so its important for me to be fully self aware when speaking to people.
I think there’s a correlation between this and self-proclaimed “empaths” who don’t actually empathize with others, but rather interpret others reality through their own distorted lense.
Example: If I told them I was fired from my job as retaliation, instead of ASKING if I’m okay / how I’m doing or even responding from a place of understanding my temperament, they instead respond with how they would feel if this happened to them. Responses like “I’m heartbroken for you” or “that just makes me so mad for you”, when I’m over here feeling like being fired was the best thing to happen to me.
I imagine it’s the same concept with “empathetic narcissists”. They don’t actually empathize with what you feel, they just perform the emotions they imagine they would feel in your shoes.
Example: If I told them I was fired from my job as retaliation, instead of ASKING if I’m okay / how I’m doing or even responding from a place of understanding my temperament, they instead respond with how they would feel if this happened to them. Responses like “I’m heartbroken for you” or “that just makes me so mad for you”, when I’m over here feeling like being fired was the best thing to happen to me.
I imagine it’s the same concept with “empathetic narcissists”. They don’t actually empathize with what you feel, they just perform the emotions they imagine they would feel in your shoes.
Posted by Soul
That was 100% me for a long time. The crazy part is it was mostly subconscious. I never woke up thinking "I'm going to fuck people up today." But in moments I felt wronged and deceived I would start subconsciously manipulating people. Sometimes it would even branch out to people who were innocent, because I'd bottle up past trauma.
Once I was aware I was extreamly good at understanding then manipulating my environment on an emotional level, I started to control myself and word things with caution. Naturally I'm like that even when I dont realize it so its important for me to be fully self aware when speaking to people.
Seriously, I like you for being so open and honest.
Becoming conscious and adjusting through consciousness is honourable, in my opinion.
Posted by Whorpio
I think there’s a correlation between this and self-proclaimed “empaths” who don’t actually empathize with others, but rather interpret others reality through their own distorted lense.
Example: If I told them I was fired from my job as retaliation, instead of ASKING if I’m okay / how I’m doing, they instead assume they know how I feel and make comments like “I’m heartbroken for you” or “that just makes me so mad for you”, when I’m over here feeling like being fired was the best thing to happen to me.
I imagine it’s the same concept with “empathetic narcissists”. They don’t actually empathize with what you feel, they just perform the emotions they imagine they would feel in your shoes.
Yeah they're not including you at all in their narrative, just how they imagine they would feel. This isn't empathy or compassion, it's just that you're an extra in their storyline that they're the main character in, even though you've just opened up to them.
Posted by clare
Well, I never knew this was really a thing until now, as I stumbled upon this whilst researching.
Empathetic narcissism describes individuals with narcissistic traits who can understand others' emotions (cognitive empathy) but often use this understanding manipulatively, rather than genuinely caring, focusing on self-interest. They might appear compassionate, even crying at movies, but their actions stem from a desire to control, gain admiration, or serve their own needs, creating a confusing dynamic where they seem caring but ultimately lack deep emotional connection or consistent support, a phenomenon sometimes called "pseudompathy".
Oh everyone does this. A common example would be virtue signalling.
Or men who call themselves feminists online and then you find out they SA ed a lot of women.
yeah, "performative" is perfect
these guys are really good at using that to craft public images so well that they'll have everyone else convinced of their goodness and generosity.
their closest intimates, esp. family members, usually describe them differently tho. when they're being honest that is.
these guys are really good at using that to craft public images so well that they'll have everyone else convinced of their goodness and generosity.
their closest intimates, esp. family members, usually describe them differently tho. when they're being honest that is.
heh. at this point there's probably no discussion on narcissism where Dr Ramani's voice wouldn't be recognized and respected. her knowledge of it is very intimate, very extensive. plus, she has such a motherly vibe.
tho i find her solutions to be too focused on damage-control and avoidance but maybe that's what appeals to her clientele. or it could just be her own person.
tho i find her solutions to be too focused on damage-control and avoidance but maybe that's what appeals to her clientele. or it could just be her own person.
Posted by clare
Here's an article for further reading:
https://www.theedgetreatment.com/empathetic-narcissism-definition-traits-and-coping-strategies/
'Cognitive' empathy is not genuine empathy or compassion.
don't judge cognitive empathy that way just because of how some people use it.
we can still show compassion to others without sharing their feelings of hurt.
Posted by SadHatterPosted by TextosmoonPosted by clare
Well, I never knew this was really a thing until now, as I stumbled upon this whilst researching.
Empathetic narcissism describes individuals with narcissistic traits who can understand others' emotions (cognitive empathy) but often use this understanding manipulatively, rather than genuinely caring, focusing on self-interest. They might appear compassionate, even crying at movies, but their actions stem from a desire to control, gain admiration, or serve their own needs, creating a confusing dynamic where they seem caring but ultimately lack deep emotional connection or consistent support, a phenomenon sometimes called "pseudompathy".
Oh everyone does this. A common example would be virtue signalling.
Or men who call themselves feminists online and then you find out they SA ed a lot of women.
click to expand
Thats exactly what this is - virtue signaling.
This is everyday life in modern America, unfortunately.
yeah ...it usually backfires tho..
Posted by clarePosted by Whorpio
I think there’s a correlation between this and self-proclaimed “empaths” who don’t actually empathize with others, but rather interpret others reality through their own distorted lense.
Example: If I told them I was fired from my job as retaliation, instead of ASKING if I’m okay / how I’m doing, they instead assume they know how I feel and make comments like “I’m heartbroken for you” or “that just makes me so mad for you”, when I’m over here feeling like being fired was the best thing to happen to me.
I imagine it’s the same concept with “empathetic narcissists”. They don’t actually empathize with what you feel, they just perform the emotions they imagine they would feel in your shoes.
Yeah they're not including you at all in their narrative, just how they imagine they would feel. This isn't empathy or compassion, it's just that you're an extra in their storyline that they're the main character in, even though you've just opened up to them.click to expand
Yes yes. It’s unfortunate, though, that only time can tell you who is listening out of genuine interest (because they genuinely see you as a fellow sentient being), and who is just listening for the sake of finding emotional loopholes they can use to manipulate you (because you are just a means to an end for them, not a sentient being).
Narcissistic personality disorder is a condition though. Sufferers of this are demonised understandably because they are destructive. But why do they manipulate and control? Why are they unable to feel and only understand on a cognitive level and why do they then use that to try to get their needs met?
They're lonely, imagine how lonely it is to not be able to feel those things that make you feel together with other people. You are always alone. The only way to not feel the desolation is to try to control people, to make them a fixture for you. It's like lonely people buying a dog. The dog is locked up and has no choice but to always be there for the person.
They're also scared, insecure and ashamed. There's a hollowness inside which is unbearable and they have given up on the means of filling that void in a positive way. Maybe they tried and failed 1000 times and so decided that only other people can fill that void but since they can't genuinely connect with people (why would people choose to be with them? Remember at their core is the deepest shame and insecurity) so instead they use information to try and manipulate and control the person into being there for them, since they believe if they were genuine then the person would never want them, would be disgusted by them. It's unfortunate
They're lonely, imagine how lonely it is to not be able to feel those things that make you feel together with other people. You are always alone. The only way to not feel the desolation is to try to control people, to make them a fixture for you. It's like lonely people buying a dog. The dog is locked up and has no choice but to always be there for the person.
They're also scared, insecure and ashamed. There's a hollowness inside which is unbearable and they have given up on the means of filling that void in a positive way. Maybe they tried and failed 1000 times and so decided that only other people can fill that void but since they can't genuinely connect with people (why would people choose to be with them? Remember at their core is the deepest shame and insecurity) so instead they use information to try and manipulate and control the person into being there for them, since they believe if they were genuine then the person would never want them, would be disgusted by them. It's unfortunate
Posted by Wizardzzz
Narcissistic personality disorder is a condition though. Sufferers of this are demonised understandably because they are destructive. But why do they manipulate and control? Why are they unable to feel and only understand on a cognitive level and why do they then use that to try to get their needs met?
They're lonely, imagine how lonely it is to not be able to feel those things that make you feel together with other people. You are always alone. The only way to not feel the desolation is to try to control people, to make them a fixture for you. It's like lonely people buying a dog. The dog is locked up and has no choice but to always be there for the person.
They're also scared, insecure and ashamed. There's a hollowness inside which is unbearable and they have given up on the means of filling that void in a positive way. Maybe they tried and failed 1000 times and so decided that only other people can fill that void but since they can't genuinely connect with people (why would people choose to be with them? Remember at their core is the deepest shame and insecurity) so instead they use information to try and manipulate and control the person into being there for them, since they believe if they were genuine then the person would never want them, would be disgusted by them. It's unfortunate
Like Jeffrey Dahmer, who knew how to pick dates up and take them back to his flat, but was completely stumped when it came to connecting further, so he gave them sleeping pills, raped them, killed them and made them permanent fixtures in his living room.
But all jokes aside, I know what you mean, it's unfortunate.
Posted by clarePosted by Wizardzzz
Narcissistic personality disorder is a condition though. Sufferers of this are demonised understandably because they are destructive. But why do they manipulate and control? Why are they unable to feel and only understand on a cognitive level and why do they then use that to try to get their needs met?
They're lonely, imagine how lonely it is to not be able to feel those things that make you feel together with other people. You are always alone. The only way to not feel the desolation is to try to control people, to make them a fixture for you. It's like lonely people buying a dog. The dog is locked up and has no choice but to always be there for the person.
They're also scared, insecure and ashamed. There's a hollowness inside which is unbearable and they have given up on the means of filling that void in a positive way. Maybe they tried and failed 1000 times and so decided that only other people can fill that void but since they can't genuinely connect with people (why would people choose to be with them? Remember at their core is the deepest shame and insecurity) so instead they use information to try and manipulate and control the person into being there for them, since they believe if they were genuine then the person would never want them, would be disgusted by them. It's unfortunate
Like Jeffrey Dahmer, who knew how to pick dates up and take them back to his flat, but was completely stumped when it came to connecting further, so he gave them sleeping pills, raped them, killed them and made them permanent fixtures in his living room.
But all jokes aside, I know what you mean, it's unfortunate.click to expand
Thing is if you uncover the fabrications of a narcissist they are deeply ashamed but they won't let you see the real person underneath for long. They will do anything to avoid you, even trying to destroy you just to stop you from seeing the truth. Also they'll move onto someone else to keep their fabrications alive
When you see the vulnerable person underneath they are human but they can't bear it to be seen. That makes them dangerous, that desperation
Posted by WizardzzzPosted by clarePosted by Wizardzzz
Narcissistic personality disorder is a condition though. Sufferers of this are demonised understandably because they are destructive. But why do they manipulate and control? Why are they unable to feel and only understand on a cognitive level and why do they then use that to try to get their needs met?
They're lonely, imagine how lonely it is to not be able to feel those things that make you feel together with other people. You are always alone. The only way to not feel the desolation is to try to control people, to make them a fixture for you. It's like lonely people buying a dog. The dog is locked up and has no choice but to always be there for the person.
They're also scared, insecure and ashamed. There's a hollowness inside which is unbearable and they have given up on the means of filling that void in a positive way. Maybe they tried and failed 1000 times and so decided that only other people can fill that void but since they can't genuinely connect with people (why would people choose to be with them? Remember at their core is the deepest shame and insecurity) so instead they use information to try and manipulate and control the person into being there for them, since they believe if they were genuine then the person would never want them, would be disgusted by them. It's unfortunate
Like Jeffrey Dahmer, who knew how to pick dates up and take them back to his flat, but was completely stumped when it came to connecting further, so he gave them sleeping pills, raped them, killed them and made them permanent fixtures in his living room.
But all jokes aside, I know what you mean, it's unfortunate.
Thing is if you uncover the fabrications of a narcissist they are deeply ashamed but they won't let you see the real person underneath for long. They will do anything to avoid you, even trying to destroy you just to stop you from seeing the truth. Also they'll move onto someone else to keep their fabrications alive
When you see the vulnerable person underneath they are human but they can't bear it to be seen. That makes them dangerous, that desperationclick to expand
I know. The irony is that experiencing empathy and compassion for them is a dangerous, slippery slope that doesn't help anybody. They desperately need to practice compassion for other people, though, as this is the only thing that will help them to truly connect with others and build meaningful, healthy relationships.
Posted by TextosmoonPosted by clare
Well, I never knew this was really a thing until now, as I stumbled upon this whilst researching.
Empathetic narcissism describes individuals with narcissistic traits who can understand others' emotions (cognitive empathy) but often use this understanding manipulatively, rather than genuinely caring, focusing on self-interest. They might appear compassionate, even crying at movies, but their actions stem from a desire to control, gain admiration, or serve their own needs, creating a confusing dynamic where they seem caring but ultimately lack deep emotional connection or consistent support, a phenomenon sometimes called "pseudompathy".
Oh everyone does this. A common example would be virtue signalling.
Or men who call themselves feminists online and then you find out they SA ed a lot of women.
click to expand
Oh wow, really!
Posted by UwaPosted by clare
Here's an article for further reading:
https://www.theedgetreatment.com/empathetic-narcissism-definition-traits-and-coping-strategies/
'Cognitive' empathy is not genuine empathy or compassion.
don't judge cognitive empathy that way just because of how some people use it.
we can still show compassion to others without sharing their feelings of hurt.click to expand
It's just what cognitive empathy is. It's not a judgement, just the terminology to use with meaning and definition. There are other types of empathy. The thing is, if you're not sharing those feelings it is not genuine emotionally felt compassion. That's why it's cognitive and is usually used in conflict resolution or negotionations.
Posted by clarePosted by UwaPosted by clare
Here's an article for further reading:
https://www.theedgetreatment.com/empathetic-narcissism-definition-traits-and-coping-strategies/
'Cognitive' empathy is not genuine empathy or compassion.
don't judge cognitive empathy that way just because of how some people use it.
we can still show compassion to others without sharing their feelings of hurt. click to expand
It's just what cognitive empathy is. It's not a judgement, just the terminology to use with meaning and definition. There are other types of empathy. The thing is, if you're not sharing those feelings it is not genuine emotionally felt compassion. That's why it's cognitive and is usually used in conflict resolution or negotionations.click to expand
the phrasing you used made it a judgement. "genuine" used there is a judgement about its quality and intention, and by framing it as "not genuine empathy or compassion" implies
1.it's of inferior quality compared to the more generally accepted kind of empathy, emotional empathy. which isn't true.
2.that the intentions behind such a kind of relation could in no way be compassionate. which also isn't true.
these two kinds of empathy are fundamentally means of relation. it's the difference between getting where someone else is coming from and feeling an approximation of what someone else is feeling within context. the mistake you're making is assuming intent—that emotional empathy automatically means compassion while cognitive does not. either can be used compassionately or cruelly—that's where intent comes in
Posted by UwaPosted by clarePosted by UwaPosted by clare
Here's an article for further reading:
https://www.theedgetreatment.com/empathetic-narcissism-definition-traits-and-coping-strategies/
'Cognitive' empathy is not genuine empathy or compassion.
don't judge cognitive empathy that way just because of how some people use it.
we can still show compassion to others without sharing their feelings of hurt. click to expand
It's just what cognitive empathy is. It's not a judgement, just the terminology to use with meaning and definition. There are other types of empathy. The thing is, if you're not sharing those feelings it is not genuine emotionally felt compassion. That's why it's cognitive and is usually used in conflict resolution or negotionations.click to expand
the phrasing you used made it a judgement. "genuine" used there is a judgement about its quality and intention, and by framing it as "not genuine empathy or compassion" implies
1.it's of inferior quality compared to the more generally accepted kind of empathy, emotional empathy. which isn't true.
2.that the intentions behind such a kind of relation could in no way be compassionate. which also isn't true.
these two kinds of empathy are fundamentally means of relation. it's the difference between getting where someone else is coming from and feeling an approximation of what someone else is feeling within context. the mistake you're making is assuming intent—that emotional empathy automatically means compassion while cognitive does not. either can be used compassionately or cruelly—that's where intent comes inclick to expand
This objection rests on a glaring category error! It treats cognitive & emotional empathy as morally neutral tools distinguished only by intent, while completely overlooking the qualitative difference in how they operate within human relationships. Cognitive empathy is nothing more but comprehension.
Emotional empathy is *genuine* precisely because it involves an affective resonance...an internal participation in another’s emotional state. Cognitive empathy, on the other hand, is merely an interpretive skill. It understands *about* another person without necessarily being *with* them emotionally. That distinction is not a judgment of worth, but a recognition of depth.
Calling cognitive empathy “less genuine” does not imply it is useless or somehow inherently malicious. However- & this is the crux of the matter- it acknowledges that, in human interaction(s), empathy divorced from felt emotional engagement lacks the relational authenticity that emotional empathy provides. Understanding someone’s pain is not the same as sharing—even partially—in it. The former can exist entirely without vulnerability, whereas the latter cannot & its precisely that vulnerability what grounds genuine compassion.
This is also why cognitive empathy carries greater risk. Because it enables accurate emotional understanding without emotional investment, therefore it can be used instrumentally—manipulation, coercion, or harm become easier when one knows *how* someone feels without *feeling with* them. How many times have we heard the phrase “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people!” yet we still recognize that some tools, by their nature, make harm more efficient when misused.
Cognitive empathy is such a tool as it largely dependent on ethical compas & the character of the person wielding it!
Emotional empathy, while not immune to misuse, inherently constrains cruelty because it requires affective engagement. It humanizes the other in a way cognitive understanding alone does not. Therefore, intent is not the sole differentiator here for structure matters. One mode of empathy embeds emotional accountability; the other does not.
Posted by ArgusPosted by UwaPosted by clarePosted by UwaPosted by clare
Here's an article for further reading:
https://www.theedgetreatment.com/empathetic-narcissism-definition-traits-and-coping-strategies/
'Cognitive' empathy is not genuine empathy or compassion.
don't judge cognitive empathy that way just because of how some people use it.
we can still show compassion to others without sharing their feelings of hurt. click to expand
It's just what cognitive empathy is. It's not a judgement, just the terminology to use with meaning and definition. There are other types of empathy. The thing is, if you're not sharing those feelings it is not genuine emotionally felt compassion. That's why it's cognitive and is usually used in conflict resolution or negotionations.click to expand
the phrasing you used made it a judgement. "genuine" used there is a judgement about its quality and intention, and by framing it as "not genuine empathy or compassion" implies
1.it's of inferior quality compared to the more generally accepted kind of empathy, emotional empathy. which isn't true.
2.that the intentions behind such a kind of relation could in no way be compassionate. which also isn't true.
these two kinds of empathy are fundamentally means of relation. it's the difference between getting where someone else is coming from and feeling an approximation of what someone else is feeling within context. the mistake you're making is assuming intent—that emotional empathy automatically means compassion while cognitive does not. either can be used compassionately or cruelly—that's where intent comes inclick to expand
This objection rests on a glaring category error! It treats cognitive & emotional empathy as morally neutral tools distinguished only by intent, while completely overlooking the qualitative difference in how they operate within human relationships. Cognitive empathy is nothing more but comprehension.
Emotional empathy is *genuine* precisely because it involves an affective resonance...an internal participation in another’s emotional state. Cognitive empathy, on the other hand, is merely an interpretive skill. It understands *about* another person without necessarily being *with* them emotionally. That distinction is not a judgment of worth, but a recognition of depth.
Calling cognitive empathy “less genuine” does not imply it is useless or somehow inherently malicious. However- & this is the crux of the matter- it acknowledges that, in human interaction(s), empathy divorced from felt emotional engagement lacks the relational authenticity that emotional empathy provides. Understanding someone’s pain is not the same as sharing—even partially—in it. The former can exist entirely without vulnerability, whereas the latter cannot & its precisely that vulnerability what grounds genuine compassion.
This is also why cognitive empathy carries greater risk. Because it enables accurate emotional understanding without emotional investment, therefore it can be used instrumentally—manipulation, coercion, or harm become easier when one knows *how* someone feels without *feeling with* them. How many times have we heard the phrase “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people!” yet we still recognize that some tools, by their nature, make harm more efficient when misused.
Cognitive empathy is such a tool as it largely dependent on ethical compas & the character of the person wielding it!
Emotional empathy, while not immune to misuse, inherently constrains cruelty because it requires affective engagement. It humanizes the other in a way cognitive understanding alone does not. Therefore, intent is not the sole differentiator here for structure matters. One mode of empathy embeds emotional accountability; the other does not.click to expand
that counterobjection relies on a shaky interpretation of the objection it's attempting to counter.
Posted by UwaPosted by ArgusPosted by UwaPosted by clarePosted by UwaPosted by clare
Here's an article for further reading:
https://www.theedgetreatment.com/empathetic-narcissism-definition-traits-and-coping-strategies/
'Cognitive' empathy is not genuine empathy or compassion.
don't judge cognitive empathy that way just because of how some people use it.
we can still show compassion to others without sharing their feelings of hurt. click to expand
It's just what cognitive empathy is. It's not a judgement, just the terminology to use with meaning and definition. There are other types of empathy. The thing is, if you're not sharing those feelings it is not genuine emotionally felt compassion. That's why it's cognitive and is usually used in conflict resolution or negotionations.click to expand
the phrasing you used made it a judgement. "genuine" used there is a judgement about its quality and intention, and by framing it as "not genuine empathy or compassion" implies
1.it's of inferior quality compared to the more generally accepted kind of empathy, emotional empathy. which isn't true.
2.that the intentions behind such a kind of relation could in no way be compassionate. which also isn't true.
these two kinds of empathy are fundamentally means of relation. it's the difference between getting where someone else is coming from and feeling an approximation of what someone else is feeling within context. the mistake you're making is assuming intent—that emotional empathy automatically means compassion while cognitive does not. either can be used compassionately or cruelly—that's where intent comes inclick to expand
This objection rests on a glaring category error! It treats cognitive & emotional empathy as morally neutral tools distinguished only by intent, while completely overlooking the qualitative difference in how they operate within human relationships. Cognitive empathy is nothing more but comprehension.
Emotional empathy is *genuine* precisely because it involves an affective resonance...an internal participation in another’s emotional state. Cognitive empathy, on the other hand, is merely an interpretive skill. It understands *about* another person without necessarily being *with* them emotionally. That distinction is not a judgment of worth, but a recognition of depth.
Calling cognitive empathy “less genuine” does not imply it is useless or somehow inherently malicious. However- & this is the crux of the matter- it acknowledges that, in human interaction(s), empathy divorced from felt emotional engagement lacks the relational authenticity that emotional empathy provides. Understanding someone’s pain is not the same as sharing—even partially—in it. The former can exist entirely without vulnerability, whereas the latter cannot & its precisely that vulnerability what grounds genuine compassion.
This is also why cognitive empathy carries greater risk. Because it enables accurate emotional understanding without emotional investment, therefore it can be used instrumentally—manipulation, coercion, or harm become easier when one knows *how* someone feels without *feeling with* them. How many times have we heard the phrase “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people!” yet we still recognize that some tools, by their nature, make harm more efficient when misused.
Cognitive empathy is such a tool as it largely dependent on ethical compas & the character of the person wielding it!
Emotional empathy, while not immune to misuse, inherently constrains cruelty because it requires affective engagement. It humanizes the other in a way cognitive understanding alone does not. Therefore, intent is not the sole differentiator here for structure matters. One mode of empathy embeds emotional accountability; the other does not.click to expand
that counterobjection relies on a shaky interpretation of the objection it's attempting to counter.click to expand
LoL
Riiiight! If you say so!
Posted by ArgusPosted by UwaPosted by clarePosted by UwaPosted by clare
Here's an article for further reading:
https://www.theedgetreatment.com/empathetic-narcissism-definition-traits-and-coping-strategies/
'Cognitive' empathy is not genuine empathy or compassion.
don't judge cognitive empathy that way just because of how some people use it.
we can still show compassion to others without sharing their feelings of hurt. click to expand
It's just what cognitive empathy is. It's not a judgement, just the terminology to use with meaning and definition. There are other types of empathy. The thing is, if you're not sharing those feelings it is not genuine emotionally felt compassion. That's why it's cognitive and is usually used in conflict resolution or negotionations.click to expand
the phrasing you used made it a judgement. "genuine" used there is a judgement about its quality and intention, and by framing it as "not genuine empathy or compassion" implies
1.it's of inferior quality compared to the more generally accepted kind of empathy, emotional empathy. which isn't true.
2.that the intentions behind such a kind of relation could in no way be compassionate. which also isn't true.
these two kinds of empathy are fundamentally means of relation. it's the difference between getting where someone else is coming from and feeling an approximation of what someone else is feeling within context. the mistake you're making is assuming intent—that emotional empathy automatically means compassion while cognitive does not. either can be used compassionately or cruelly—that's where intent comes inclick to expand
This objection rests on a glaring category error! It treats cognitive & emotional empathy as morally neutral tools distinguished only by intent, while completely overlooking the qualitative difference in how they operate within human relationships. Cognitive empathy is nothing more but comprehension.
Emotional empathy is *genuine* precisely because it involves an affective resonance...an internal participation in another’s emotional state. Cognitive empathy, on the other hand, is merely an interpretive skill. It understands *about* another person without necessarily being *with* them emotionally. That distinction is not a judgment of worth, but a recognition of depth.
Calling cognitive empathy “less genuine” does not imply it is useless or somehow inherently malicious. However- & this is the crux of the matter- it acknowledges that, in human interaction(s), empathy divorced from felt emotional engagement lacks the relational authenticity that emotional empathy provides. Understanding someone’s pain is not the same as sharing—even partially—in it. The former can exist entirely without vulnerability, whereas the latter cannot & its precisely that vulnerability what grounds genuine compassion.
This is also why cognitive empathy carries greater risk. Because it enables accurate emotional understanding without emotional investment, therefore it can be used instrumentally—manipulation, coercion, or harm become easier when one knows *how* someone feels without *feeling with* them. How many times have we heard the phrase “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people!” yet we still recognize that some tools, by their nature, make harm more efficient when misused.
Cognitive empathy is such a tool as it largely dependent on ethical compas & the character of the person wielding it!
Emotional empathy, while not immune to misuse, inherently constrains cruelty because it requires affective engagement. It humanizes the other in a way cognitive understanding alone does not. Therefore, intent is not the sole differentiator here for structure matters. One mode of empathy embeds emotional accountability; the other does not.click to expand
yes, they're morally neutral tools. no, what distinguishes them is not intent itself—intent is just what determines whether that empathy type is compassion and honest or not. also, you're romanticizing feeling and treating it as proof of moral and relational depth and accountability, and a distance from feeling as some deficiency.. that's more a comfort story than structural truth
"Emotional empathy involves affective resonance", and "cognitive involves comprehension without necessarily feeling", these are both true but then you sneak in a value claim with that word "genuine".
and sure cognitve empathy can feel less genuine because it doesnt feel warm because it hardly shows any affect and it can exist without care and can be used instrumentally as you mentioned—but in those cases the problem isn't the type of empathy but an absence of concern or accountability. and emotional empathy doesn't guarantee concern or accountability either, only mirroring within that context and moment.
so cognitve is not comparatively less genuine as is, just different, and phrasing it as "it is less genuine" is declarative and presumes a fact, whereas "it feels less genuine" as a possible alternative admits the personal preference that it is.
okay, vulnerability certainly doesn't equal authenticity, emotional involvement doesnt assure moral constraint, and the claim that feeling humanizes while understanding alone does not is just no
th3se claims are more ideological than analytical.
plenty of people feel deeply and still harm, manipulate and coerce others. emotional resonance doesn’t necessarily prevent harm or even violence more than cogniive distance— it can certainly make people feel righteous while harming. and cognitive distance doesn’t necessarily reduce humanity—it certainly might, tho what it does reduce is emotional intoxication. also, what emotional empathy usually gains in resonance, the positive feeling of shared affect, it often loses in clarity, and what cognitive empathy usually loses in affective resonce, it often gain in clarity that can be just as grounding
compassion isn’t grounded in vulnerability but in choice. another's pain doesn't need to be felt to be treated with care. and feeling it doesn’t guarantee it will be. structure doesn’t make ethics, will does.
Posted by UwaPosted by ArgusPosted by UwaPosted by clarePosted by UwaPosted by clare
Here's an article for further reading:
https://www.theedgetreatment.com/empathetic-narcissism-definition-traits-and-coping-strategies/
'Cognitive' empathy is not genuine empathy or compassion.
don't judge cognitive empathy that way just because of how some people use it.
we can still show compassion to others without sharing their feelings of hurt. click to expand
It's just what cognitive empathy is. It's not a judgement, just the terminology to use with meaning and definition. There are other types of empathy. The thing is, if you're not sharing those feelings it is not genuine emotionally felt compassion. That's why it's cognitive and is usually used in conflict resolution or negotionations.click to expand
the phrasing you used made it a judgement. "genuine" used there is a judgement about its quality and intention, and by framing it as "not genuine empathy or compassion" implies
1.it's of inferior quality compared to the more generally accepted kind of empathy, emotional empathy. which isn't true.
2.that the intentions behind such a kind of relation could in no way be compassionate. which also isn't true.
these two kinds of empathy are fundamentally means of relation. it's the difference between getting where someone else is coming from and feeling an approximation of what someone else is feeling within context. the mistake you're making is assuming intent—that emotional empathy automatically means compassion while cognitive does not. either can be used compassionately or cruelly—that's where intent comes inclick to expand
This objection rests on a glaring category error! It treats cognitive & emotional empathy as morally neutral tools distinguished only by intent, while completely overlooking the qualitative difference in how they operate within human relationships. Cognitive empathy is nothing more but comprehension.
Emotional empathy is *genuine* precisely because it involves an affective resonance...an internal participation in another’s emotional state. Cognitive empathy, on the other hand, is merely an interpretive skill. It understands *about* another person without necessarily being *with* them emotionally. That distinction is not a judgment of worth, but a recognition of depth.
Calling cognitive empathy “less genuine” does not imply it is useless or somehow inherently malicious. However- & this is the crux of the matter- it acknowledges that, in human interaction(s), empathy divorced from felt emotional engagement lacks the relational authenticity that emotional empathy provides. Understanding someone’s pain is not the same as sharing—even partially—in it. The former can exist entirely without vulnerability, whereas the latter cannot & its precisely that vulnerability what grounds genuine compassion.
This is also why cognitive empathy carries greater risk. Because it enables accurate emotional understanding without emotional investment, therefore it can be used instrumentally—manipulation, coercion, or harm become easier when one knows *how* someone feels without *feeling with* them. How many times have we heard the phrase “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people!” yet we still recognize that some tools, by their nature, make harm more efficient when misused.
Cognitive empathy is such a tool as it largely dependent on ethical compas & the character of the person wielding it!
Emotional empathy, while not immune to misuse, inherently constrains cruelty because it requires affective engagement. It humanizes the other in a way cognitive understanding alone does not. Therefore, intent is not the sole differentiator here for structure matters. One mode of empathy embeds emotional accountability; the other does not.click to expand
yes, they're morally neutral tools. no, what distinguishes them is not intent itself—intent is just what determines whether that empathy type is compassion and honest or not. also, you're romanticizing feeling and treating it as proof of moral and relational depth and accountability, and a distance from feeling as some deficiency.. that's more a comfort story than structural truth
"Emotional empathy involves affective resonance", and "cognitive involves comprehension without necessarily feeling", these are both true but then you sneak in a value claim with that word "genuine".
and sure cognitve empathy can feel less genuine because it doesnt feel warm because it hardly shows any affect and it can exist without care and can be used instrumentally as you mentioned—but in those cases the problem isn't the type of empathy but an absence of concern or accountability. and emotional empathy doesn't guarantee concern or accountability either, only mirroring within that context and moment.
so cognitve is not comparatively less genuine as is, just different, and phrasing it as "it is less genuine" is declarative and presumes a fact, whereas "it feels less genuine" as a possible alternative admits the personal preference that it is.
okay, vulnerability certainly doesn't equal authenticity, emotional involvement doesnt assure moral constraint, and the claim that feeling humanizes while understanding alone does not is just no
th3se claims are more ideological than analytical.
plenty of people feel deeply and still harm, manipulate and coerce others. emotional resonance doesn’t necessarily prevent harm or even violence more than cogniive distance— it can certainly make people feel righteous while harming. and cognitive distance doesn’t necessarily reduce humanity—it certainly might, tho what it does reduce is emotional intoxication. also, what emotional empathy usually gains in resonance, the positive feeling of shared affect, it often loses in clarity, and what cognitive empathy usually loses in affective resonce, it often gain in clarity that can be just as grounding
compassion isn’t grounded in vulnerability but in choice. another's pain doesn't need to be felt to be treated with care. and feeling it doesn’t guarantee it will be. structure doesn’t make ethics, will does.click to expand
I may or may not come back to this at some later point if afforded sufficient time. However, for the time being, I feel complled to extand my appreciation for the effort put forth even though it would appear -at least at the first glance- we might be at an imapss. That siad, I'm always up for a challenge to split hairs!
At any rate, before I exist stage left, I'd like to adress the beging of the 2nd to the last paragraph in where it is argued that "plenty of people feel deeply and still harm..." which is precisely the distinction which separates narcissists (not the type presented in the OP) from what's conventionally understood to be emotioanlty stable/healthy individual seeing how narcissists have indeed profoundly deep feelings. Except, those feelings are exteneded only to themselves! Not others, ergo 0 empathy yet laden with abundance of manipulative faculties.
Posted by UwaPosted by clarePosted by UwaPosted by clare
Here's an article for further reading:
https://www.theedgetreatment.com/empathetic-narcissism-definition-traits-and-coping-strategies/
'Cognitive' empathy is not genuine empathy or compassion.
don't judge cognitive empathy that way just because of how some people use it.
we can still show compassion to others without sharing their feelings of hurt. click to expand
It's just what cognitive empathy is. It's not a judgement, just the terminology to use with meaning and definition. There are other types of empathy. The thing is, if you're not sharing those feelings it is not genuine emotionally felt compassion. That's why it's cognitive and is usually used in conflict resolution or negotionations.
the phrasing you used made it a judgement. "genuine" used there is a judgement about its quality and intention, and by framing it as "not genuine empathy or compassion" implies
1.it's of inferior quality compared to the more generally accepted kind of empathy, emotional empathy. which isn't true.
2.that the intentions behind such a kind of relation could in no way be compassionate. which also isn't true.
these two kinds of empathy are fundamentally means of relation. it's the difference between getting where someone else is coming from and feeling an approximation of what someone else is feeling within context. the mistake you're making is assuming intent—that emotional empathy automatically means compassion while cognitive does not. either can be used compassionately or cruelly—that's where intent comes inclick to expand
1. It is of inferior quality because it is of lower value. There is higher personal risk involved and more energetic investment with emotional empathy.
2. That's not what this is about. Cognitive empathy and compassion can happen simultaneously, but they tend not to in the case of someone with NPD because they struggle with emotional empathy. Cognitive empathy is most often used as a manipulative tool, by those with NPD.
Posted by UwaPosted by ArgusPosted by UwaPosted by clarePosted by UwaPosted by clare
Here's an article for further reading:
https://www.theedgetreatment.com/empathetic-narcissism-definition-traits-and-coping-strategies/
'Cognitive' empathy is not genuine empathy or compassion.
don't judge cognitive empathy that way just because of how some people use it.
we can still show compassion to others without sharing their feelings of hurt. click to expand
It's just what cognitive empathy is. It's not a judgement, just the terminology to use with meaning and definition. There are other types of empathy. The thing is, if you're not sharing those feelings it is not genuine emotionally felt compassion. That's why it's cognitive and is usually used in conflict resolution or negotionations.click to expand
the phrasing you used made it a judgement. "genuine" used there is a judgement about its quality and intention, and by framing it as "not genuine empathy or compassion" implies
1.it's of inferior quality compared to the more generally accepted kind of empathy, emotional empathy. which isn't true.
2.that the intentions behind such a kind of relation could in no way be compassionate. which also isn't true.
these two kinds of empathy are fundamentally means of relation. it's the difference between getting where someone else is coming from and feeling an approximation of what someone else is feeling within context. the mistake you're making is assuming intent—that emotional empathy automatically means compassion while cognitive does not. either can be used compassionately or cruelly—that's where intent comes inclick to expand
This objection rests on a glaring category error! It treats cognitive & emotional empathy as morally neutral tools distinguished only by intent, while completely overlooking the qualitative difference in how they operate within human relationships. Cognitive empathy is nothing more but comprehension.
Emotional empathy is *genuine* precisely because it involves an affective resonance...an internal participation in another’s emotional state. Cognitive empathy, on the other hand, is merely an interpretive skill. It understands *about* another person without necessarily being *with* them emotionally. That distinction is not a judgment of worth, but a recognition of depth.
Calling cognitive empathy “less genuine” does not imply it is useless or somehow inherently malicious. However- & this is the crux of the matter- it acknowledges that, in human interaction(s), empathy divorced from felt emotional engagement lacks the relational authenticity that emotional empathy provides. Understanding someone’s pain is not the same as sharing—even partially—in it. The former can exist entirely without vulnerability, whereas the latter cannot & its precisely that vulnerability what grounds genuine compassion.
This is also why cognitive empathy carries greater risk. Because it enables accurate emotional understanding without emotional investment, therefore it can be used instrumentally—manipulation, coercion, or harm become easier when one knows *how* someone feels without *feeling with* them. How many times have we heard the phrase “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people!” yet we still recognize that some tools, by their nature, make harm more efficient when misused.
Cognitive empathy is such a tool as it largely dependent on ethical compas & the character of the person wielding it!
Emotional empathy, while not immune to misuse, inherently constrains cruelty because it requires affective engagement. It humanizes the other in a way cognitive understanding alone does not. Therefore, intent is not the sole differentiator here for structure matters. One mode of empathy embeds emotional accountability; the other does not.
yes, they're morally neutral tools. no, what distinguishes them is not intent itself—intent is just what determines whether that empathy type is compassion and honest or not. also, you're romanticizing feeling and treating it as proof of moral and relational depth and accountability, and a distance from feeling as some deficiency.. that's more a comfort story than structural truth
"Emotional empathy involves affective resonance", and "cognitive involves comprehension without necessarily feeling", these are both true but then you sneak in a value claim with that word "genuine".
and sure cognitve empathy can feel less genuine because it doesnt feel warm because it hardly shows any affect and it can exist without care and can be used instrumentally as you mentioned—but in those cases the problem isn't the type of empathy but an absence of concern or accountability. and emotional empathy doesn't guarantee concern or accountability either, only mirroring within that context and moment.
so cognitve is not comparatively less genuine as is, just different, and phrasing it as "it is less genuine" is declarative and presumes a fact, whereas "it feels less genuine" as a possible alternative admits the personal preference that it is.
okay, vulnerability certainly doesn't equal authenticity, emotional involvement doesnt assure moral constraint, and the claim that feeling humanizes while understanding alone does not is just no
th3se claims are more ideological than analytical.
plenty of people feel deeply and still harm, manipulate and coerce others. emotional resonance doesn’t necessarily prevent harm or even violence more than cogniive distance— it can certainly make people feel righteous while harming. and cognitive distance doesn’t necessarily reduce humanity—it certainly might, tho what it does reduce is emotional intoxication. also, what emotional empathy usually gains in resonance, the positive feeling of shared affect, it often loses in clarity, and what cognitive empathy usually loses in affective resonce, it often gain in clarity that can be just as grounding
compassion isn’t grounded in vulnerability but in choice. another's pain doesn't need to be felt to be treated with care. and feeling it doesn’t guarantee it will be. structure doesn’t make ethics, will does.click to expand
You're splitting hairs away from topic. This thread is on the topic of narcissism. Empathic narcissism. Not much, if any of what you just said applies to NPD. Why not create a new thread for your topic?
Posted by Argus
I may or may not come back to this at some later point if afforded sufficient time. However, for the time being, I feel complled to extand my appreciation for the effort put forth even though it would appear -at least at the first glance- we might be at an imapss. That siad, I'm always up for a challenge to split hairs!
At any rate, before I exist stage left, I'd like to adress the beging of the 2nd to the last paragraph in where it is argued that "plenty of people feel deeply and still harm..." which is precisely the distinction which separates narcissists (not the type presented in the OP) from what's conventionally understood to be emotioanlty stable/healthy individual seeing how narcissists have indeed profoundly deep feelings. Except, those feelings are exteneded only to themselves! Not others, ergo 0 empathy yet laden with abundance of manipulative faculties.
exactly. aye aye to everything.
i've actually been very pleased while reading the responses. disagreements are healthy, kind even—especially when the focus addresses perceiev3d inconsitencies in another’s understanding instead of character. besides, it's gem desc—this is also banter
Posted by clarePosted by UwaPosted by clarePosted by UwaPosted by clare
Here's an article for further reading:
https://www.theedgetreatment.com/empathetic-narcissism-definition-traits-and-coping-strategies/
'Cognitive' empathy is not genuine empathy or compassion.
don't judge cognitive empathy that way just because of how some people use it.
we can still show compassion to others without sharing their feelings of hurt. click to expand
It's just what cognitive empathy is. It's not a judgement, just the terminology to use with meaning and definition. There are other types of empathy. The thing is, if you're not sharing those feelings it is not genuine emotionally felt compassion. That's why it's cognitive and is usually used in conflict resolution or negotionations.
the phrasing you used made it a judgement. "genuine" used there is a judgement about its quality and intention, and by framing it as "not genuine empathy or compassion" implies
1.it's of inferior quality compared to the more generally accepted kind of empathy, emotional empathy. which isn't true.
2.that the intentions behind such a kind of relation could in no way be compassionate. which also isn't true.
these two kinds of empathy are fundamentally means of relation. it's the difference between getting where someone else is coming from and feeling an approximation of what someone else is feeling within context. the mistake you're making is assuming intent—that emotional empathy automatically means compassion while cognitive does not. either can be used compassionately or cruelly—that's where intent comes inclick to expand
1. It is of inferior quality because it is of lower value. There is higher personal risk involved and more energetic investment with emotional empathy.
2. That's not what this is about. Cognitive empathy and compassion can happen simultaneously, but they tend not to in the case of someone with NPD because they struggle with emotional empathy. Cognitive empathy is most often used as a manipulative tool, by those with NPD.click to expand
okay lets keep this in frame. i agree with everything else in your first posts but this
"'Cognitive' empathy is not genuine empathy or compassion." this risks throwing away the good with the bad.
and
1.what you're pointing out there is cost not value. something requiring more personal risk or energetic investment doesn’t make it inherently superior, it just makes it more immersive for the person experiencing it. emotionl empathy risks overwhelm and projection and cognitive empathy risks detachment and misuse. neither is inherently virtuous or more.. both are tools and neiither is superior,they serve different relational functions. you're trying to place one as superior to the other because it feels warmer to you, nothing wrong with that, it's wrong tho when it's framed as truth and not the preference it is.
2.maybe it's not your intention but when you phrase it as "Cognitive empathy is most often used as a manipulative tool, by those with NPD" for example
again, it's attributing misuse to a tool rather than the wielder. cognitive empathy being used manipulatively by some people with npd doesn’t define what it is, that’s like saying language is inherently deceitful because liars use it. the issue there is absence of ethical intent, not the presence of cognitive understanding.
Posted by clare
You're splitting hairs away from topic. This thread is on the topic of narcissism. Empathic narcissism. Not much, if any of what you just said applies to NPD. Why not create a new thread for your topic?
contrary, it's opposite,
the topic is narcissism, precision matters more here not less
and so far you've talked on empathic narcissism while treating empathy as a moral substance instead of a functional mechanism, me addressing the foundation of that claim is not splitting hairs
NPD isnt defined by lack of feeling but distorted orientation. a self-centered affct, instrumental relating, and impaired accountability
so yes everything ive shared applies.
because whether empathy is emotional or cognitive doesn’t determine narcissism. how it is used does
and calling this off topic just avoids the part of the discussion where simple moral categories don't work
if you still consider this to have absolutely nothing to do with the topic, remember,
you have the liberty to regard it so and ignore it. that's your prerogative
just as i have the liberty to address what i deem worth addressing
Posted by clarePosted by TextosmoonPosted by clare
Well, I never knew this was really a thing until now, as I stumbled upon this whilst researching.
Empathetic narcissism describes individuals with narcissistic traits who can understand others' emotions (cognitive empathy) but often use this understanding manipulatively, rather than genuinely caring, focusing on self-interest. They might appear compassionate, even crying at movies, but their actions stem from a desire to control, gain admiration, or serve their own needs, creating a confusing dynamic where they seem caring but ultimately lack deep emotional connection or consistent support, a phenomenon sometimes called "pseudompathy".
Oh everyone does this. A common example would be virtue signalling.
Or men who call themselves feminists online and then you find out they SA ed a lot of women.
click to expand
Oh wow, really!click to expand
Oh yes. My weird DMS come from ALL sides
Posted by UwaPosted by clareokay lets keep this in frame. i agree with everything else in your first posts but thisPosted by UwaPosted by clarePosted by UwaPosted by clare
Here's an article for further reading:
https://www.theedgetreatment.com/empathetic-narcissism-definition-traits-and-coping-strategies/
'Cognitive' empathy is not genuine empathy or compassion.
don't judge cognitive empathy that way just because of how some people use it.
we can still show compassion to others without sharing their feelings of hurt. click to expand
It's just what cognitive empathy is. It's not a judgement, just the terminology to use with meaning and definition. There are other types of empathy. The thing is, if you're not sharing those feelings it is not genuine emotionally felt compassion. That's why it's cognitive and is usually used in conflict resolution or negotionations.
the phrasing you used made it a judgement. "genuine" used there is a judgement about its quality and intention, and by framing it as "not genuine empathy or compassion" implies
1.it's of inferior quality compared to the more generally accepted kind of empathy, emotional empathy. which isn't true.
2.that the intentions behind such a kind of relation could in no way be compassionate. which also isn't true.
these two kinds of empathy are fundamentally means of relation. it's the difference between getting where someone else is coming from and feeling an approximation of what someone else is feeling within context. the mistake you're making is assuming intent—that emotional empathy automatically means compassion while cognitive does not. either can be used compassionately or cruelly—that's where intent comes inclick to expand
1. It is of inferior quality because it is of lower value. There is higher personal risk involved and more energetic investment with emotional empathy.
2. That's not what this is about. Cognitive empathy and compassion can happen simultaneously, but they tend not to in the case of someone with NPD because they struggle with emotional empathy. Cognitive empathy is most often used as a manipulative tool, by those with NPD.
"'Cognitive' empathy is not genuine empathy or compassion." this risks throwing away the good with the bad.
and
1.what you're pointing out there is cost not value. something requiring more personal risk or energetic investment doesn’t make it inherently superior, it just makes it more immersive for the person experiencing it. emotionl empathy risks overwhelm and projection and cognitive empathy risks detachment and misuse. neither is inherently virtuous or more.. both are tools and neiither is superior,they serve different relational functions. you're trying to place one as superior to the other because it feels warmer to you, nothing wrong with that, it's wrong tho when it's framed as truth and not the preference it is.
2.maybe it's not your intention but when you phrase it as "Cognitive empathy is most often used as a manipulative tool, by those with NPD" for example
again, it's attributing misuse to a tool rather than the wielder. cognitive empathy being used manipulatively by some people with npd doesn’t define what it is, that’s like saying language is inherently deceitful because liars use it. the issue there is absence of ethical intent, not the presence of cognitive understanding.click to expand
I mean I wouldn't have used the term inferior quality myself, as it's not very nice or diplomatic, but I also wouldn't say it's absolutely incorrect.
'language is inherently deceitful because liars use it' .. but it's not about the language, it's about the liars who used it. This isn't about cognitive empathy or people who use cognitive empathy who aren't NPD, it's about people with empathic narcissism who use cognitive empathy to manipulate others.
Posted by UwaPosted by clare
You're splitting hairs away from topic. This thread is on the topic of narcissism. Empathic narcissism. Not much, if any of what you just said applies to NPD. Why not create a new thread for your topic?
contrary, it's opposite,
the topic is narcissism, precision matters more here not less
and so far you've talked on empathic narcissism while treating empathy as a moral substance instead of a functional mechanism, me addressing the foundation of that claim is not splitting hairs
NPD isnt defined by lack of feeling but distorted orientation. a self-centered affct, instrumental relating, and impaired accountability
so yes everything ive shared applies.
because whether empathy is emotional or cognitive doesn’t determine narcissism. how it is used does
and calling this off topic just avoids the part of the discussion where simple moral categories don't work
if you still consider this to have absolutely nothing to do with the topic, remember,
you have the liberty to regard it so and ignore it. that's your prerogative
just as i have the liberty to address what i deem worth addressingclick to expand
"NPD isnt defined by lack of feeling but distorted orientation. a self-centered affct, instrumental relating, and impaired accountability"
So sorry if this is lazy of me but I'm just going to post the NPD DSM-5 criteria.
DSM-5 Diagnostic Criteria for NPD (At least 5 of 9)
A clinician looks for these pervasive patterns:
Grandiose self-importance: Exaggerating achievements.
Fantasies of success: Preoccupied with unlimited success, power, or beauty.
Belief in being "special": Believes they are unique and can only be understood by high-status people/groups.
Need for excessive admiration: Constant need for attention.
Sense of entitlement: Unreasonable expectations of favorable treatment.
Interpersonally exploitative: Uses others to achieve their own ends.
Lack of empathy: Unwilling to identify with others' feelings/needs.
Envy: Envious of others or believes others are envious of them.
Arrogant attitudes: Haughty, arrogant behaviors or attitudes.
Posted by UwaPosted by clare
You're splitting hairs away from topic. This thread is on the topic of narcissism. Empathic narcissism. Not much, if any of what you just said applies to NPD. Why not create a new thread for your topic?
contrary, it's opposite,
the topic is narcissism, precision matters more here not less
and so far you've talked on empathic narcissism while treating empathy as a moral substance instead of a functional mechanism, me addressing the foundation of that claim is not splitting hairs
NPD isnt defined by lack of feeling but distorted orientation. a self-centered affct, instrumental relating, and impaired accountability
so yes everything ive shared applies.
because whether empathy is emotional or cognitive doesn’t determine narcissism. how it is used does
and calling this off topic just avoids the part of the discussion where simple moral categories don't work
if you still consider this to have absolutely nothing to do with the topic, remember,
you have the liberty to regard it so and ignore it. that's your prerogative
just as i have the liberty to address what i deem worth addressingclick to expand
To be honest, it feels as though you would like to share your feelings on how emotional vs cognitive empathy are viewed by others in general and what this means to you. I'm totally here for that. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but there isn't a type of empathy that is exclusive to NPD or those without, whether they have good moral compasses or not. What are you saying? I really didn't read this issue being looked at in the original post.
@clare
it's been clear for some time now the difference in our dispositions
example, whether something said here was "nice or diplomatic" has never been my concern nor relevant to my posts so far. my concern throughtout the context of this discussion has been *accuracy*.
preventing misrepresentation
how something is presented affects how it's interpreted.
any one may read this topic. any one. could be one merely interested inbit or even the latest person going through the confusing relationship of being with or near a narc. and whatever conclusions they come to could be influenced as a result.
ive addressed as i can your posts and subsequent posts concerming such misrepresentations—and so far there's nothing new in that regard
it's been clear for some time now the difference in our dispositions
example, whether something said here was "nice or diplomatic" has never been my concern nor relevant to my posts so far. my concern throughtout the context of this discussion has been *accuracy*.
preventing misrepresentation
how something is presented affects how it's interpreted.
any one may read this topic. any one. could be one merely interested inbit or even the latest person going through the confusing relationship of being with or near a narc. and whatever conclusions they come to could be influenced as a result.
ive addressed as i can your posts and subsequent posts concerming such misrepresentations—and so far there's nothing new in that regard
Posted by Uwa
@clare
it's been clear for some time now the difference in our dispositions
example, whether something said here was "nice or diplomatic" has never been my concern nor relevant to my posts so far. my concern throughtout the context of this discussion has been *accuracy*.
preventing misrepresentation
how something is presented affects how it's interpreted.
any one may read this topic. any one. could be one merely interested inbit or even the latest person going through the confusing relationship of being with or near a narc. and whatever conclusions they come to could be influenced as a result.
ive addressed as i can your posts and subsequent posts concerming such misrepresentations—and so far there's nothing new in that regard
Well to be honest it was pretty much ai generated on a Google search on the topic with a video that also came up. I'm helping someone out here who's going through something and even if some arguments aren't making that any more simple, I still welcome them. However still a little unsure as to your specific point or maybe I just don't agree that the context in any way misrepresented cognitive empathy. Either way it is what it is. 🤷 it's ok.
Individuals with narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) - can understand the feelings of others though cognitive empathy, but typically - have significantly reduced or impaired emotional/affective empathy. They often do not share or feel others' emotions and their empathic responses vary with motivation, subtype (grandiose vs. vulnerable) and situation. This lack of empathy is rather relevant to the NPD diagnostic (most obvious trait - what stands out the most).
As an example - of "cognitive empathy" used instrumentally... A manager with NPD can notice that an employee is upset and calls that emotion ("You look frustrated") - but uses that knowledge to push the employee harder or to get them to take on extra work - rather than offering support.
In a relationship - a partner with NPD reacts to their partner’s anxiety by criticizing them for “being weak” or ignoring calls for comfort, blaming the partner for causing the problem instead of validating feelings. People with NPD - usually just mirror sadness or concern they don’t genuinely feel - to lower another person’s defenses, then exploit the relationship for advantage.
A "friend" with NPD - may perform generous acts publicly to enhance his/her reputation (paying for drinks/diner - "while in a group" - or buying gifts which are gifted publicly for other to notice their action) - but decline to help privately even with small matters - when there’s no potential for recognition. It's recommend to avoid/refuse "their public generosity" - cause they'll also use this for guilt-tripping - expecting 10x in return (through all kinds of services - not necessarily financial).
So no, in the true sense - wouldn't say that Empathic Narcissism is a thing, unless it's strictly cognitive. Also, every individual has a narcissistic side - since it's required for survival. Tho, if taken to extremes - that's what NPD is all about. There's also the opposite extreme - where one's level of narcissism is unhealthy on the lower side (quite the opposite of NPD), basically - individuals who care more about others than their own basic needs or worse - when it comes to their own persona - they don't seem to care at all (they struggle with very low/unhealthy self worth). In therapy - this people have to learn to be more narcissistic (to value themselves - as well, to care about their image), since this lacking - is actually why they can't function - usually used and abused by almost everyone around them (even by people who are capable of empathy).
As an example - of "cognitive empathy" used instrumentally... A manager with NPD can notice that an employee is upset and calls that emotion ("You look frustrated") - but uses that knowledge to push the employee harder or to get them to take on extra work - rather than offering support.
In a relationship - a partner with NPD reacts to their partner’s anxiety by criticizing them for “being weak” or ignoring calls for comfort, blaming the partner for causing the problem instead of validating feelings. People with NPD - usually just mirror sadness or concern they don’t genuinely feel - to lower another person’s defenses, then exploit the relationship for advantage.
A "friend" with NPD - may perform generous acts publicly to enhance his/her reputation (paying for drinks/diner - "while in a group" - or buying gifts which are gifted publicly for other to notice their action) - but decline to help privately even with small matters - when there’s no potential for recognition. It's recommend to avoid/refuse "their public generosity" - cause they'll also use this for guilt-tripping - expecting 10x in return (through all kinds of services - not necessarily financial).
So no, in the true sense - wouldn't say that Empathic Narcissism is a thing, unless it's strictly cognitive. Also, every individual has a narcissistic side - since it's required for survival. Tho, if taken to extremes - that's what NPD is all about. There's also the opposite extreme - where one's level of narcissism is unhealthy on the lower side (quite the opposite of NPD), basically - individuals who care more about others than their own basic needs or worse - when it comes to their own persona - they don't seem to care at all (they struggle with very low/unhealthy self worth). In therapy - this people have to learn to be more narcissistic (to value themselves - as well, to care about their image), since this lacking - is actually why they can't function - usually used and abused by almost everyone around them (even by people who are capable of empathy).
What is it called when you share a problem you are going through with someone and they say something along the lines of: “It could be way worse!”
Posted by Bluemoon86
What is it called when you share a problem you are going through with someone and they say something along the lines of: “It could be way worse!”
Well, from an astrology perspective I think we’d call that someone who has a lot of air or mutable placements in their chart 😅
Posted by UwaPosted by Argusexactly. aye aye to everything.
I may or may not come back to this at some later point if afforded sufficient time. However, for the time being, I feel complled to extand my appreciation for the effort put forth even though it would appear -at least at the first glance- we might be at an imapss. That siad, I'm always up for a challenge to split hairs!
At any rate, before I exist stage left, I'd like to adress the beging of the 2nd to the last paragraph in where it is argued that "plenty of people feel deeply and still harm..." which is precisely the distinction which separates narcissists (not the type presented in the OP) from what's conventionally understood to be emotioanlty stable/healthy individual seeing how narcissists have indeed profoundly deep feelings. Except, those feelings are exteneded only to themselves! Not others, ergo 0 empathy yet laden with abundance of manipulative faculties.
i've actually been very pleased while reading the responses. disagreements are healthy, kind even—especially when the focus addresses perceiev3d inconsitencies in another’s understanding instead of character. besides, it's gem desc—this is also banterclick to expand
Now that I had some time for a meaningful comprehension of your earlier post instead of just skimming it, I simply must note a not so subtle odor of hypocrisy plaguing said rebuttal.
Accusing me of romanticizing emotions is an attempt—as feeble as it may be—to simultaneously accomplish several objectives. One is to establish a false hierarchy with notable superiority of your own argument while inadvertently disparaging the validity of the one I previously postulated. More subversive, however, is that labeling it as “romanticizing” is not, in fact, an analysis. Rather, it is a dismissal that mistakes—or inaccurately conflates—emotional literacy with exaggeration.
Phrasing it in such a manner reframes authentic emotional experiences, reducing them to mere indulgence. I shan’t pretend to know how things are done on Planet Vulcan, but here on Planet Earth, humans—for the most part—place considerable value on emotional connection. This is not sentimentality but an observable feature of human social behavior. The greatest irony is the inescapable truth that even the most logical decisions humans make are still heavily underpinned by one’s emotional landscape. In other words, it is not a matter of which is superior, but which is foundational within interrelational pathways & therefore perceived as more valuable.
I already conceded that cognitive empathy has its time and place, but prioritizing it over emotional connection tends to leave participants largely empty and unfulfilled. Numerous psychological frameworks support this distinction between understanding emotions & actually sharing or responding to them. The former is certainly one’s prerogative, though it is not the primary modus operandi of the average human. So, I hate to disppoint, but I was not romanticizing anything—merely stating the obvious!
We could certainly go back and forth debating semantics, but I do not believe this thread is either the time or the place for that, as it would heavily distract from the original post/message.
Other than that, pleased to make your acquaintance gem descendant!
Posted by WhorpioPosted by Bluemoon86Well, from an astrology perspective I think we’d call that someone who has a lot of air or mutable placements in their chart 😅
What is it called when you share a problem you are going through with someone and they say something along the lines of: “It could be way worse!”click to expand
Makes sense.
Posted by Bluemoon86
What is it called when you share a problem you are going through with someone and they say something along the lines of: “It could be way worse!”
dismissive
Posted by clarePosted by WizardzzzPosted by clarePosted by Wizardzzz
Narcissistic personality disorder is a condition though. Sufferers of this are demonised understandably because they are destructive. But why do they manipulate and control? Why are they unable to feel and only understand on a cognitive level and why do they then use that to try to get their needs met?
They're lonely, imagine how lonely it is to not be able to feel those things that make you feel together with other people. You are always alone. The only way to not feel the desolation is to try to control people, to make them a fixture for you. It's like lonely people buying a dog. The dog is locked up and has no choice but to always be there for the person.
They're also scared, insecure and ashamed. There's a hollowness inside which is unbearable and they have given up on the means of filling that void in a positive way. Maybe they tried and failed 1000 times and so decided that only other people can fill that void but since they can't genuinely connect with people (why would people choose to be with them? Remember at their core is the deepest shame and insecurity) so instead they use information to try and manipulate and control the person into being there for them, since they believe if they were genuine then the person would never want them, would be disgusted by them. It's unfortunate
Like Jeffrey Dahmer, who knew how to pick dates up and take them back to his flat, but was completely stumped when it came to connecting further, so he gave them sleeping pills, raped them, killed them and made them permanent fixtures in his living room.
But all jokes aside, I know what you mean, it's unfortunate.
Thing is if you uncover the fabrications of a narcissist they are deeply ashamed but they won't let you see the real person underneath for long. They will do anything to avoid you, even trying to destroy you just to stop you from seeing the truth. Also they'll move onto someone else to keep their fabrications alive
When you see the vulnerable person underneath they are human but they can't bear it to be seen. That makes them dangerous, that desperation click to expand
I know. The irony is that experiencing empathy and compassion for them is a dangerous, slippery slope that doesn't help anybody. They desperately need to practice compassion for other people, though, as this is the only thing that will help them to truly connect with others and build meaningful, healthy relationships.click to expand
Yeh but the trauma/fear underneath is too powerful.
Posted by ArgusPosted by UwaPosted by Argus
I may or may not come back to this at some later point if afforded sufficient time. However, for the time being, I feel complled to extand my appreciation for the effort put forth even though it would appear -at least at the first glance- we might be at an imapss. That siad, I'm always up for a challenge to split hairs!
At any rate, before I exist stage left, I'd like to adress the beging of the 2nd to the last paragraph in where it is argued that "plenty of people feel deeply and still harm..." which is precisely the distinction which separates narcissists (not the type presented in the OP) from what's conventionally understood to be emotioanlty stable/healthy individual seeing how narcissists have indeed profoundly deep feelings. Except, those feelings are exteneded only to themselves! Not others, ergo 0 empathy yet laden with abundance of manipulative faculties.
exactly. aye aye to everything.
i've actually been very pleased while reading the responses. disagreements are healthy, kind even—especially when the focus addresses perceiev3d inconsitencies in another’s understanding instead of character. besides, it's gem desc—this is also banterclick to expand
Now that I had some time for a meaningful comprehension of your earlier post instead of just skimming it, I simply must note a not so subtle odor of hypocrisy plaguing said rebuttal.
Accusing me of romanticizing emotions is an attempt—as feeble as it may be—to simultaneously accomplish several objectives. One is to establish a false hierarchy with notable superiority of your own argument while inadvertently disparaging the validity of the one I previously postulated. More subversive, however, is that labeling it as “romanticizing” is not, in fact, an analysis. Rather, it is a dismissal that mistakes—or inaccurately conflates—emotional literacy with exaggeration.
Phrasing it in such a manner reframes authentic emotional experiences, reducing them to mere indulgence. I shan’t pretend to know how things are done on Planet Vulcan, but here on Planet Earth, humans—for the most part—place considerable value on emotional connection. This is not sentimentality but an observable feature of human social behavior. The greatest irony is the inescapable truth that even the most logical decisions humans make are still heavily underpinned by one’s emotional landscape. In other words, it is not a matter of which is superior, but which is foundational within interrelational pathways & therefore perceived as more valuable.
I already conceded that cognitive empathy has its time and place, but prioritizing it over emotional connection tends to leave participants largely empty and unfulfilled. Numerous psychological frameworks support this distinction between understanding emotions & actually sharing or responding to them. The former is certainly one’s prerogative, though it is not the primary modus operandi of the average human. So, I hate to disppoint, but I was not romanticizing anything—merely stating the obvious!
We could certainly go back and forth debating semantics, but I do not believe this thread is either the time or the place for that, as it would heavily distract from the original post/message.
Other than that, pleased to make your acquaintance gem descendant!click to expand
you had me thinking "could i have said that–" and reading the thread again.
we've talked past each other long enough
first, the thread has already been defined
-from OP''s posts
-to Wizardzz's, esp. that second post—i doubt such knowledge can be gained outside experience
-then neves' practical clarity—the only thing remiss there was the conclusion of empathic narcissm as being not a thing.
it's called empathic narcissism because of its appearance, meanwhile the source that innervated the displayed emotions might not even be found within that moment. it's an interrelational intelligence so fine tuned the person is able to achieve a shared resinance with another that appears on the surface as typical empathy. why i mentioned intent earlier—it's the only effective way to determine morality here besides outcomes. this has little to do with your particular post but applies to the thread.
knowing this, the topic is neither hollow nor fragile enough that a back-n-forth like this could diminish it. if there's any risk, it's the opposite.
second, i will dance this dance with you if the music is still on
your claims here are not wrong—emotions are a very worthwhile, very present aspect within interrelation. the inaccuracy is in that you translate the regional to the universal and overgeneralize.
the language you use reflects this. it's grand,rhetorical, very expressive emotionally, but within it are some assumptions and generalizations. there's an implicit bias there.
even your sharpest point here, as an example, still does that, "The greatest irony is the inescapable truth that even the most logical decisions humans make are still heavily underpinned by one’s emotional landscape. In other words, it is not a matter of which is superior, but which is foundational within interrelational pathways & therefore perceived as more valuable."
"foundational". there's clearly an implicit bias towards moral heirachy. not wrong, just reaches beyond its territory.
it's easy to see why my claim that you were romanticizing, a claim that's quite applicable in the context it was used, would come across as a "dismissal"
my implicit bias maybe is in that i am treating this as a mechanism within a structure and t3sting its integrity
This isnt recognized in the DSM-5. Most likely its just a form of vulnerable narcissim. Remember, narcissism is 1 of the dark triad, including Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. All 3 have a degree of cognitive empathy. But its not true empathy, its a form of manipulation or survival. Thats the essence of what a narcissist does - they leverage the concept of empathy to create maskes, they understand subconsciously how to cause trauma, and create attachment . Love bombing for example: that take s level of empathetic understanding at an intellectual level. Thats how they know what you want to hear. Youre a means to their ends.
All forms of narcissisim is on a gradient, sliding scale.. its not a 1 size fits all. Vulnerable narcissists are harder to uncover as they're not grandiose, they're introverted.. grandiose are easy to point out as they're extroverted. Their core motivators are basically the same.
All forms of narcissisim is on a gradient, sliding scale.. its not a 1 size fits all. Vulnerable narcissists are harder to uncover as they're not grandiose, they're introverted.. grandiose are easy to point out as they're extroverted. Their core motivators are basically the same.
Keep dxpnet Independent
dxpnet has been online since 1997, powered by real conversations and a passionate astrology community.
If this page helped you, you can support the site below.
Every contribution helps keep dxpnet independent and ad-light.
Join the Conversation. Explore Yourself. Connect with Others.
Discover insights, swap stories, and find people. dxpnet is where experiences turn into understanding.
Create Your Free Account →Related Topics
Carl jung, the founder of analytical psychology and an astrologer, created many laws and concepts within his field. one of these was jung's law of compensation: intensity in consciousness is mirrored with depth in our shadow.
Stockholm syndrome is a complex psychological response/ condition that occurs in people who are held hostage or against their will by somebody else, who in most situations will be referred to as their 'captor' or their abuser. the victim develops positive
To the type of people who say things like this: do you know women who have great work attendance, volunteer for OT, who like negative attention for making a mistake that costs the company thousands? Do you know women who love being told they have methhead
I didn’t know where else to post this so figured I’d post it here.
I have absolutely no experience with kids as I have none of my own and have only been working in a preschool/daycare setting for about 7 months now.
I am working with one year olds
Mine are *Intense and Passionate*
No surprise there ~ Scorpio then Taurus dominant and fire rising.
What are yours?
State your astro placements if possible.
https://www.verywellmind.com/personality-test-8567826#toc-take-the-free-personality-test
Men are good at:
-being sugarbabies
-cooking, grilling, smoking, hunting/fishing, prepping meat
-extermination, working with electricity, installing internet, plumbing, understanding lots of that shit like nut types and obscure tools etc
-managing people
I thought it was pathetic "paying for someone to care" when I was a kid (saw lots of therapists between 15-18 bc the school necessitated it, two suicide attempts at two different high schools), and all therapists ever did was teach me breathing exercises,
Or in General.
I heard it comes from your childhood but I don't know how exactly.
I tend to trust women more. I would prefer a woman in most scenarios except for maybe soldier. But then I would trust Women more in making war plans, I would feel they wou
Thank you for all the condolences 💐
I appreciate you all! ❣️🐈⬛
Please tell me how do you deal with sadness and emptiness that’s left after someone you care about passes away?
And it doesn’t matter if it’s a person or a pet- only love and faith is imp
This video inspired me and got me to thinking about things that have been told to me that were hurtful by people throughout my life. What was the most painful thing anyone has ever said to you?
https://youtu.be/AVYNk2dPb9U?si=cIDD35nl0DiMnWoX
people are like this forum is dead so i just thought i’d make a thread 😂 might still be dead after this too but at least i tried 😂
anyone one else either had parents who:
-were absent
-acted like a child
-placed conditions on the love they gave you
Best way to keep a man. I hope she know all that astrology shit don't matter if the top ain't hittin
I gave her an estimate and it’s thousands in equipment and tools she took from my dad after divorce. It’s taking up so much storage space as she’s trying to renovate.
He cheated on her and she kicked him out. Also he’s not dead so to me it’s a bit weird.
I didn’t know whether to post this in the psychology forum but
does anyone else have this weird habit of mentally/emotionally preparing for the worst as a defense mechanism sort of thing ?
Whenever I do anything in life, I try my absolute best and giv
Someone who obviously neither gets subtle signs or even listen to you when you tell them bluntly how they are crossing your boundaries or how their ways make you feel uncomfortable.
Problem is really with my father and brother, but it could be something
I noticed this (including myself) that when women talk about their success, they tend to downplay it? I saw someone talk about their success on social media but also talked about where she's failing including not having a husband or wife.
Very rarely do
To reset my mind, I have to isolate myself and either do some type of physical activity, or completely forget about a task at hand and just relax. I think this may have something to do with my moon in Capricorn. I'm not good with the feels, I have to expr
What is your choice of drug and what are the benefits you experience?
You may also state any information you have in regards to astrology such as a placement you feel contributes to you trying a different method to self-medicate.
I personally have been e
archetypes are universal symbols, figures, and life patterns jung believed to be inherent to humans and shared across the collective unconscious, and indicate traits within ourselves and what we seek out in others.
which ones do you most identify with,
Hello, I guess I will be the first to pop the board's cherry. Have you ever taken the Myer Briggs Personality T
Empathetic narcissism describes individuals with narcissistic traits who can understand others' emotions (cognitive empathy) but often use this understanding manipulatively, rather than genuinely caring, focusing on self-interest. They might appear compassionate, even crying at movies, but their actions stem from a desire to control, gain admiration, or serve their own needs, creating a confusing dynamic where they seem caring but ultimately lack deep emotional connection or consistent support, a phenomenon sometimes called "pseudompathy".