Nr. 51

n recent times I’ve adjusted my view on kindness to the concept of ‘Goldilocks Empathy’. It’s a silly self developed quasi-philosophical term I just made up so no bother googling it. Or maybe it already is one? Damn, now I have to google. 

Ok I found one cynical article linking them, but it’s not exactly what mean by it. 

As a theorist I cannot fully embrace altruism as there are too many subjective reasonings arguing against the full capacity that entails. However, the idealistic aspect of altruism is worthy of trying to achieve. 

I recently read several articles about how empathy can be damaging to your health and lead to depression. My own depression doesn’t stem from this, but I guess trying my hardest to self improve and be kind has definitely made me more distant from people I care about. And the reason for that is empathy, strangely enough. You get this irrational and faulty idea that the ultimate kindness would be to step aside and let them be undisturbed by any of your own drama, neglecting of course your positive impact on them. And this is where perfectionism will throw a monkey wrench in your well laid plan of being good. You focus on where your shortcomings are and that supersedes your ability to see your strength and worth. 

Empathy isn’t just understanding when people are in pain and giving them care. We tend to forget that empathy operates on the other side of the scale as well. Being an empath means you are able to not only place yourself in the shoes of others, but also feel what they feel. And that includes when they are feeling love and happiness as well. 

So when I talk about the ‘Goldilocks Empathy’ I really want to pinpoint that not all empathy is negative or energy draining.  There is a balance to it. Feeling happiness on behalf of other people is part of what makes empathy incredibly important. I disagree with the reports saying empathy being damaging if too much is exerted, I would argue that empathy combined with a lack of awareness, self regulation and a destructive perfectionism can be draining, but empathy in itself will still stand the test of being one of the strongest components in building a better society. 

People who are natural empaths can’t really just turn off that faucet. I’m not a natural one, but I’ve embedded it into my core logical reasoning through years of (pretentious) contemplation. I wouldn’t be able to just switch my core moral philosophical stand without further evidence. I would be so bold as to question the depth of the reports and research. I might be wrong and if I am I will stand corrected. But what I suspect is the crux of this disagreement I have is I don’t see it as simplistic as caring just drains you. It can, but not solely for the reason of caring. And even if it did there are plenty of ways that cost would balance out or even give you a more purposeful life. 

I sound quite aggressive, which hasn’t been my intention. But I feel empathy is a fragile subject in today’s society. It’s not a top priority. So when I read that you shouldn’t be too empathetic, I feel I need to speak up. 

To be a devils advocate: there are of course merit in the idea that scientifically and medically you can measure energy draining from your body. And if they do experienced drained energy by giving empathy for learning about people’s terrible situations in life, yes, of course it will be noticeable on your own energy level. But I didn’t see they measure the positive side of empathy. If they could feel the joy and love on behalf of others. Measure that too. Hopefully you will see that ‘Goldilocks Empathy’ emerge.