Talk:Empathy/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Gibberish sentence, unclear meaning, please fix

"The empathy-altruism relationship also has broad for whom empathy is felt at the expense of other potential pro-social goals" = ??? Equinox ◑ 21:11, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Where is that sentence in the article? Go ahead and remove it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:46, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

 Restored broken sentence. --Askedonty (talk) 16:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't say this entire piece needed restoration. Hopefully, it's all sourced. You tweaked it here and I tweaked it here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:33, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I thought not useful to diverge from the source, and it's still lengthy. The short tweak was best. --Askedonty (talk) 17:15, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Removed category:autism

Previously this article was tagged with Category:Autism. I removed this because empathy is not a subtopic of autism in any obvious way. Does anyone object or have another view? Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

To repeat: Here you removed the Category:Autism from the Empathy article, but empathy significantly concerns the autism topic. Because of this, the category includes the Empathizing–systemizing theory and Empathy quotient articles.

So are you looking to remove the category from the Empathizing–systemizing theory and Empathy quotient articles as well. If so, why? Based on what criterion/criteria? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:47, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

"Empathizing–systemizing theory" and "Empathy quotient" are technical terms and do not have much to do with any common understanding of empathy. Those might be subtopics of autism and empathy, or maybe they are just subtopics of autism. I would not equate those nuanced recently invented terms with the universal concept of empathy.

100% of humans have and experience empathy; autism is a much less common experience. If you feel that the concepts are related, then why not put "autism" into a category for empathy? Autism is the more specific branch of the broader topic, right? Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:00, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

The Empathizing–systemizing theory and Empathy quotient articles touch on matters with respect to autism. The latter article states, "EQ was designed to test the empathizing–systemizing theory, a theory which places individuals in different brain-type categories based on their tendencies toward empathy and system creation, and was intended especially for clinical use to determine the role of lack of empathy in psychopathology, in particular to screen for autism spectrum disorder." So why wouldn't that article be in the empathy autism category? With regard to "related," it's not about what I feel; it's about what reliable sources state. I wanted to know if your reasoning for the removal of Category:Autism from the Empathy article is based on any of our guidelines about categorizing. From what you've stated, I'm taking the answer as a no. As for your proposal, I'm not usually concerned with categories. I just wanted to know what reasoning, other than the one you gave in your edit summary, you had for the removal. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:11, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are getting at with the psychology term articles. I did not touch those and I do not have much opinion.

If we were to talk this forward, I would ask for your thoughts on how to determine whether empathy is a category of autism or vice versa. I agree that they are related. I think empathy is the major topic because it is possible to understand empathy with no concept of autism, but not possible to understand autism without understanding empathy.

Does any counterargument exist for assigning empathy as a subtopic of autism? Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:26, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

With regard to the Empathizing–systemizing theory and Empathy quotient articles, I am getting at the fact that those articles also deal with autism, just like the Empathy article does, and both of those are in the autism category. So why shouldn't this article also be in the autism category? What criterion/criteria are you basing removal on? As it seems you aren't going by a guideline and categorization really isn't my area, although I adhere to matters such as WP:BLPCAT, it's clear to me that we need to address this at Wikipedia talk:Categorization or post an alert there about this discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: I think your argument is that because those two articles related to empathy are related to autism, then the general article on empathy must be related to autism. I am not seeing that. I agree that those two articles are intersectional, but I do not see reason to believe that those autism + empathy articles are evidence that empathy is a subtopic of autism. I am trying to follow your logic and I also do not see why you think empathy might be a subtopic of autism but you do not seem to consider that autism could be a subtopic of empathy.

Sure, call anyone else over to here. I also do not know what categorization rule to apply to made a judgement. I might be mistaken and you might be correct about this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

No need to ping me. You've spoken of "related" and subtopics. Those other two articles are related and are subtopics of empathy. I was not arguing that empathy is a subtopic of autism. I've argued that empathy significantly concerns the autism topic, as indicated by the Empathy article and the aforementioned subtopics. I'll go ahead and point Wikipedia talk:Categorization to this discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I find Bluerasberry's position more persuasive here. Empathy may significantly concern the autism topic, but that doesn't make autism a defining category for empathy, as per WP:DEFCAT. "A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having": that is not the case here, so this article should not be in the autism category. Bondegezou (talk) 08:36, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Bondegezou, thanks. I remember the category dispute regarding the Beauty and the Beast (2017 film) article and WP:DEFCAT being mentioned, but I didn't pay much attention to that debate. As mentioned above, category matters on Wikipedia aren't my area. What do you think of Bluerasberry's suggestion to put "autism" into a category for empathy? Also, what do you think of the Empathizing–systemizing theory and Empathy quotient articles being in the autism category? There is no need to ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:00, 10 August 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:08, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Empathizing–systemizing theory and Empathy quotient are both in the Autism category and that seems OK to me: these are theories related to autism research. Putting Autism into an Empathy category is more controversial: I am less convinced. Do reliable sources commonly and consistently define autism in terms of empathy? Not really, I'd say. Bondegezou (talk) 16:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Origin of Einfühlung

I have been researching the concept of empathy for some time, and am familiar with the idea that empathy came to be the translation of the German word Einfühlung. Obviously, knowing something about the meaning and history of Einfühlung is important. I recently came across an article by Magdalena Nowak ("The Complicated History of Einfühlung," published in the on-line refereed journal, ARGUMENT, Vol 1, Issue 2 in 2011, pp 301-326. In contrast to what is stated in the Wikipedia article, that the word was created by Herman Lotze and Richard Vischer, Nowak shows the word used by Gottfried Herder, a German Romantic philosopher in the 18th century. In addition, Richard Vischer's father, Friedrich Theodor Vischer, was a major contributor to discussions about the application of Einfühlung; his son carried on his work. Herder's work influenced Friedrich Schleiermacher, among others. So my question is how to go about making changes that would correct the record; I am far from young, but I am new at this. I tried one other time to make a correction in a different article, and was summarily criticized and my changes were deleted. I was not clear what I had done wrong, so this is why I am laying this out here. Soulfulpsy (talk) 07:58, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Adding Storytelling as a Subsection to Education

Hello!

As a group, it was felt that storytelling is an important part in showing and invoking empathy. The implications of using this technique could go in any direction. We will be adding this to the empathy page within the next few days, so if this doesn't meet the right guidelines, let us know.

Cmmcdowell2 (talk) 02:00, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Cmmcdowell2, it is best that you first post a link here on the talk page to the sandbox for the assignment. This is so that I or other experienced Wikipedians can review it first and let you know what any issue with it are.

If you reply to this, please don't WP:Ping me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:55, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

There is an article that talks about how children react to how an individual tells a story. Here is the link. If I didn't link the website right I am sorry still new to this.

Clint Sengmany (talk) 05:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

This is the link I plan on using:

Cmmcdowell2 (talk) 06:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Here are some additional links. The primary goal of these links talks about the importance of storytelling and how it develops children's cognitive ability. This last article has a section that talks about how to make children interested in reading.

The main goal of these article talks about how it is important for children to start reading at a young age. It allows them to succeed in social interactions and academics.

Clint Sengmany (talk) 20:29, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Updated my sandbox on the suggested added section. If you have any questions or comments please post on this talk page.

Clint Sengmany (talk) 23:13, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Regarding User:Clint Sengmany/sandbox, the sources need to be on the topic of empathy or discuss it. And explicitly. No WP:Synthesis. You should avoid primary sources; see WP:Scholarship. Frontiersin.org is a questionable source to use, per what is stated in the Frontiers Media article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Article Critique

The article lacks a detailed lead section, clear structure, balanced content, and clear tone. The lead section needs more information such as terminology, background, and sources to give the readers a good overview of what the topic will be talking about in the following paragraphs. Also, the article needs a better organization of headings and subheadings; For instance, in the second paragraph, the writer explains the terminology of empathy. This information must be placed into the lead section because it explains the origin of the word and it covers the essentials of the topic. I also found that some of the subheadings do not support their main ideas; for example, in paragraph four the writer focuses in the "development of empathy”, and it uses supporting details such as individual differences, sex differences, and environmental influences which do not correlate with the main idea. However, supportive details must back up to the main idea. In the third paragraph, the writer focuses on the classification of empathy and supports this topic with types of empathy such as effective empathy, cognitive empathy, and somatic empathy. But the somatic type does not equal the amount of information as to the others. Unbalanced information leaves the reader with little knowledge, and it unable them to have a full understanding of the topic. Therefore, it needs more added information for the whole paragraph to be completed. I also found in the same sub-heading that the writer tries to guess or gives an opinion to the physical reaction that affects somatic empathy without citing a source of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ann Bumgarder (talk • contribs) 18:17, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The first thing that I noticed about this article was that the lead section is very small, it is only three sentences. Also, this article is not following along with the chronological flow regarding the way that it should be structured. First, it should start off explaining the origin of the term or where it was derived from instead of beginning with how the word is used or what people commonly confuse empathy with. Then after you have the origin of the term you should next give the definition of the term, I noticed that there is both a etymology and definition section, those sections should be moved into the lead section and modified in the appropriate ways to enhance the article. I noticed that under some of these different sections within the article that there is not an equal balance of information. For instance, in the classification section there is only one sentence talking about somatic empathy, it definitely needs some more information supporting that section. In the empathetic anger and distress section there is also a disbalance of information when talking about anger and distress. There needs to be more information supporting the distress section. The same thing goes for the empathetic distress fatigue section and the international comparison of country wide empathy. I also noticed that there is a mixture of sources and it’s not a bad thing, but I feel that some of the older sources should be updated, since some of the sources are from 1970s and 1980s. Now when you update your sources you can also update the information as well based on the new findings that you may be presented with. NNJ200 (talk) 22 June 2020 (UTC)Natalie Jodhan

Evaluation

First, I see that the author is talking about empathy in human, but lately in the development section I got completely loss just because the article is not in chronological order. Another aspect that I take into consideration is the detail lead section which refers to the overview at the start of this article. It is not clear or easy to comprehend. From my perspective, is to general because the article put together empathy in humans and animals together.

Second, this article does not have a clear structure. I was unable to follow the subject while reading it. I do not know the reason it talks about empathy then suddenly jump into the psychopathy disorder section. It does not make any sense for me at all. In my humble opinion, this article should be revised because it seems that the author just copy and paste the information without analyzing it. I have some critical questions that I am asking to myself such as: what is the topic? Who or what the article is about? How does it cover the specific audience? Why is it not clear enough to be comprehensible?

I can understand clearly the reason that our instructors always said do not use Wikipedia as a source when it comes to a student research paper. Based on this article, which has a lot of problems, I decided not to rely on Wikipedia to do my schoolwork. I truly believe that this source needs some improvement in order for their articles to make sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francoisanne (talk • contribs)

Article Critique: Empathy

After reading and analyzing this Wikipedia article on empathy there are somethings wrong with it. The first thing that this page is noticeably lacking, is information in the lead section. This lead section is missing much detail about the definition of the word, the history of it including who founded it and when it was defined. There is no history of the coining of the word or where it comes from in the lead section. The definition and etymology should also be mentioned in the lead paragraph rather than down in the definition section. In the second paragraph of the definition section there should be a incite citation stating the name of the person rather than saying “some say”. This goes along with the number 15 citation which should be cited in the text. The section about compassion and sympathy should also be in the lead section as it is related to the definition and should be found in the beginning when related information is being told. Although much of the information that the lead section is lacking can be found on the Wikipedia page in later sections, some of this information such as the definition, history, and related terms should be in the lead section. The section about Empathic distress fatigue should also be expand upon as there is not much about the statistics of it or who, when, and where it was founded. Furthermore, this article is missing key information in the lead section and the structure of some of the sections were misplace. Those misplaced and unclear section should have been included in the lead section. There were also some sections such as the one about Empathic distress fatigue which should have been better stated and given more information to support it. {Erinlizzie12} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erinlizzie12 (talk • contribs)

Small Edit Made in Anger Section

As I read through this article, I noticed that there was a spot in the anger section that didn't have an available reference. After quite a bit of searching, I was unable to find anything that supported it, so I went ahead and replaced that line with a new quote and reference. --Oceanwater31 (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Evaluation

One section that can be improved upon is the detailed lead section of the article, it only provides a simple definition and different types of empathy. As stated by WikiEdu, a detailed lead section must give a summary of the article that is clear and understandable. The given lead section does provide the minimum amount of needed information however it is recommended to give a complete overview of empathy and its background and contents. The article started out correctly with the definition of empathy but needs to follow up more facts about the topic itself going in order by the topic's origin and different versions, a summary of its development, and how it is used now. This probably is not necessary to bring about but not all facts should be written in the lead section but at least a small, 2 to 4 sentence paragraph of each sub-heading on the topic of empathy.

Another section that can be improved upon is the article's sources due to their questionable origin. These sources do not seem too reliable compared to information given by a source made by an educational or organizational group. In addition, most of the sources are a bit out of date but, on the contrary, they show that information on the topic of empathy has been around for decades. To make an article more reliable, the sources used must come from an organizational or educational background and be up to date where the sources are from 2 to 5 years in record in exception to a specific time being mentioned about the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodriguezar15 (talk • contribs)

"Indifference to others' suffering" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Indifference to others' suffering. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 26#Indifference to others' suffering until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:57, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Double empathy problem

Cflam01, I took out[1] what you added[2] because we can put it in better than that. You created the double empathy problem page, and I agree the double empathy problem topic should be mentioned in the empathy page. But do you think you can add it in a more professional and less preachy tone while ensuring that you're using only quality sourcing for the topic? Also, phrasing like "recent research" isn't helpful. GBFEE (talk) 19:55, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• I strongly disagree with the removal of valid sourced content. Cflam01 added verifiable sourced content, and if you look to the top of this page at the projects this word is associated with, and all of the categories for this word on the bottom of the page, you will see this word belongs to nothing at all related to "Wikipedia:Biomedical information". In fact, it states:

Etymology and definitions

The words that society, groups, or individuals use to indicate a condition, as well as whether they choose to think of a situation as a small part of a large condition or as a separate condition are not, themselves, biomedical information.

Huggums537 (talk) 22:09, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• Disregard my previous argument. I just realized that even though this article in general does not constitute "Biomedical information", the portion of information that was added by Cflam01 very well could be considered as "Biomedical information". However, I still disagree with the removal of sourced content anyway. The better way to handle it is to leave the material in and ask the editor to improve it or just help improve it. Huggums537 (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
• I would also add that if Cflam01 wants to put the material back in, then "it is commonly known" is a "weasel word" I would advise not to use in an article as well. Huggums537 (talk) 22:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Hey, Huggums537. It's nice to see you again after our spirited debate in a related discussion.[3] I don't think it's a good argument to say we should leave content in an article just because it's sourced. I also don't think one of the best choices for content that has issues is always going to be "improve it yourself or ask the person who added it to improve it." Sometimes it should just come out, or come out temporarily for improvement on the article's talk page. Asking the editor who added it to improve it is reasonable, and I did ask the editor who added it just that for this bit of content. GBFEE (talk) 20:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Three-section merge

I have proposed that the three "sex differences in empathy" sections across three articles be merged under Sex differences in psychology#Empathy. Please join the discussion. --Xurizuri (talk) 12:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 1 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MonicaCespedes.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2019 and 14 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Clint.D.Sengmany, Neek907, Cmmcdowell2, Clint Sengmany.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Somatic empathy

Lcscnc, somatic empathy[4] redirects here. So you either need to cover it here or take it to discussion. GBFEE (talk) 20:54, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Empathy experiment

In workplaces, the level of empathy is exactly what hinders or advances diversity and inclusion efforts. Additionally, diversity foster innovation and recently I stumbled upon this link that helps promote empathy in workplaces. Maybe there is a way of adding it as supportive content for readers interested in the topic of Empathy?

Beardbear (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Burgesspfc.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

"Males"/"females" => "men"/"women" when talking about humans

Moorlock, I've seen you a few do this same thing at other articles. Use that exact phrasing, as if quoting from guidance. So tell me, what Wikipedia guidance says to do this? When the topic is "sex differences" instead of "gender differences", why is it important to say "men and women" as if children are never included in the studies? Even if about gender differences as well, why would we not pay children attention when children are also the study subjects? Are the MRI studies that find females to have larger grey matter volumes in posterior inferior frontal and anterior inferior parietal cortex areas only found in women and not girls?[5] If parts are about the differences between men and women rather than all male and female humans, we should use "men and women". But when the parts are also true of male and female children, we are not telling the whole story when we use "men and women" only, and we portray the findings as only being an adult feature. To say "boys and men" and "girls and women" is always a possibility, but some will find it tedious and will just say "males and females" anyway. GBFEE (talk) 20:53, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't intending to refer to any wikipedia guidance page. I don't know whether there is one on this subject. I can see an argument for using "males"/"females" to refer to humans when there might be some ambiguity about whether "men"/"women" includes juveniles. On the other hand, "males"/"females" can make it ambiguous whether or not they are meant to refer only to humans or also to members of other species. I'm all for using the most accurate and precise terms, so if you spot areas in which I have been too aggressive in making changes in this way, please fix them up. -- Moorlock (talk) 21:37, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Moorlock, I understand your outlook on this. I hadn't considered that you might also be thinking of other species. But information about abilities such as empathy is usually only referring to humans. I think people usually do a good job of clarifying for readers when the information is about other species or both humans and other species. If "men and women" is more helpful than "males and females" for some parts of articles, I see no issue with going with that. We just have to use our best judgment on things like this. For sex difference topics, children, adolescents, and adults are often studied, so it's not always as simple as using "men and women." GBFEE (talk) 21:48, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

"Clarify" requests

Moorlock, I also think that you should simply reword most of your "clarification" requests. For example, this[6] one. Too many of these requests can make the page uneasy to read. Some of them also aren't clear about what your issue is with the phrasing or how someone can help you understand them, especially if the text uses the same phrasing from the resource. GBFEE (talk) 22:00, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I reword them when I can more-or-less confidently know what the original author had in mind or what the most likely possible interpretation is. Sometimes, though, it's too difficult for me to tell what the writer intended to say, but the existing text is too ambiguous, vague, or confusing to be useful as-is, so I use the "clarify" tag. Moorlock (talk) 22:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Some of what you tag can also just be removed, though. That's better than many of these requests throughout the page that editors usually will not try to sort out. Sometimes it might also be preferable to tag a whole section as needing cleanup instead. You tagged one part as a sentence fragment, but I don't understand why because editors are allowed to combine part of a quote with a non-quoted sentence they wrote. And when text uses the same phrasing as the resource, that's one reason someone might not change the phrasing. You might hope that someone else can sort out what the resource meant, but maybe they don't know, and will never know, either. GBFEE (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I understand now why the sentence fragment wasn't helpful, and I have removed it.[7] GBFEE (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

terminology

@Mathsci

> Suffering from a traumatic brain injury (as in this segment of the article) is an acute medical condition; using a euphemism is inappropriate)

If it is a medical condition, then the medical style guide applies [[WP:SUFFER]. Therefore the phrase suffer should not be used. However, traumatic brain injury is a chronic condition and the symptom of that condition is impaired memory, then [[WP:SUFFER] guidelines apply.

Furthermore, "with" is not a euphemism. Smasongarrison (talk) 11:44 pm, Today (UTC−4) Smasongarrison (talk) 03:51, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

@User:Mathsci Honestly, I just want you to leave me alone. If that means letting you keep problematic language, then so be. I think it is best for everyone if we just do not interact at all. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Smasongarrison&oldid=1087221970 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smasongarrison (talk • contribs) 04:21, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Definition and comparison with sympathy

Empathy definition should be "capacity to understand and, possibly, feel what another person is experiencing from within their frame of reference, that is, the capacity to understand the point of view or perspective adopted by another person (which is colloquially referred to as "to place oneself in another's position").

Sympathy, by definition, requires the person who feels sympathy to share the same feeling but not necessarily understand it.

So, when a person understands someone else's feeling AND also feels the same as that person, he is being both empathetic and sympathetic, respectively. George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 07:20, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Intro to Psychology

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 July 2022 and 25 August 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CieloGissel95 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by CieloGissel95 (talk) 02:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Shoddy definition

Empathy goes beyond understanding what other person is feeling. Psychopaths (to some extent autistic people, too, and other types of disorders) have no empathy yet claim to understand the thought processes as well as emotion of other people. They just utilize it as a tool, they do not form boundaries within themselves based on the Golden Rule of Ethics, which stems from empathy.

I think the definition should include that internalization, or mirroring of another person's feelings, an acknowledgement that goes beyond "understanding." Galehautt (talk) 08:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)