Simon Baron-Cohen wrote a fascinating piece in the Guardian considering the reality of cruelty in human affairs. He proposes the notion that there is a scale of empathy – a scale which reflects the amount of empathy a person feels towards others.
People said to be “evil” or cruel are simply at one extreme of the empathy spectrum. We can all be lined up along this spectrum of individual differences, based on how much empathy we have. At one end of this spectrum we find “zero degrees of empathy”.
Zero degrees of empathy means you have no awareness of how you come across to others, how to interact with others, or how to anticipate their feelings or reactions. It leaves you feeling mystified by why relationships don’t work out, and it creates a deep-seated self-centredness. Other people’s thoughts and feelings are just off your radar. It leaves you doomed to do your own thing, in your own little bubble, not just oblivious of other people’s feelings and thoughts but oblivious to the idea that there might even be other points of view. The consequence is that you believe 100% in the rightness of your own ideas and beliefs, and judge anyone who does not hold your beliefs as wrong, or stupid.
I think this is a useful concept – Ian McEwan, the writer, wrote after 9/11 that the terrorists were guilty of a “failure of imagination”. It’s true that imagination is the faculty we use to put ourselves into the shoes of others. If someone really does get into the mental state of “zero degrees of empathy”, then I can see that it is likely they would be capable of far greater acts of cruelty.
I like how he goes on to consider the value of empathy –
Empathy is like a universal solvent. Any problem immersed in empathy becomes soluble. It is effective as a way of anticipating and resolving interpersonal problems, whether this is a marital conflict, an international conflict, a problem at work, difficulties in a friendship, political deadlocks, a family dispute, or a problem with the neighbour. Unlike the arms industry that costs trillions of dollars to maintain, or the prison service and legal system that cost millions of dollars to keep oiled, empathy is free. And, unlike religion, empathy cannot, by definition, oppress anyone.
Empathy, is, I believe, crucially important in health care. Yes, I need good clinical diagnostic and therapeutic skills and knowledge, but empathy is what drives me to find the best for every patient. It also seems to make a lot of sense to me that empathy, as it involves, active, non-judgemental listening and a desire to understand and know another person, makes it more likely I will actually arrive at a “correct” diagnosis. Aren’t doctors more likely to miss a diagnosis if they have zero degrees of empathy? (By the way, I suspect empathy isn’t a constant. We probably all move up and down along the empathy scale, day by day, week by week. Makes it a good idea to reflect on where you are at the moment though, doesn’t it?)
Heroes Not Zombies 
The problem with lineal scales, is that you have to have a good idea of what the question is.
I think in the west, we miss the point, of having a look at what causes the cultural reactions in different areas.
There is a bad history of wiping out indigenous people across the world.Anger may be more present than empathy.
Not too sure that this is a good record for empathy.
Walking in another`s shoes, was always a good opportunity of
having a look.
Communicating is difficult, and I am grateful especially when one is ill, and that an empathic practitioner is at hand.
I forgive the interns that have been working for too many long hours, and yawn through consultations.
Interesting post.
It’s perhaps worth reflecting here on the difference between empathy and theory of mind. Empathy is the ability to feel something another person feels, which can clearly help judging what emotions and conflicts they are going through. Theory of Mind involves being able to make a similar judgement, without necessarily feeling the emotions they do.
To take an extreme outlier example, some of those with what used to be called a psychopathic disorder might have brilliant theory of mind but lack any sort of emotional regard for the other party (what used to be characterised as “charming psychopaths”).
Good theory of Mind (allied to enlightened professional self-interest) may result in a reasonable facsimilie of an empathic approach to diagnosis and treatment (and may be more accurate in some situations due to the greater emotional compartmentalisation it offers) and I rather suspect that the subset of health care professionals beloved by their patients for the caring nature and communication skills are composed of representatives from both cohorts! 😉
[…] resulting from a failure of imagination, as a cause of cruelty, was highlighted by the author Ian McEwan, and others, after […]