Hacker News Reader

> It takes a level of emotional intelligence to communicate in a way which gets to the core of the issue while not making the other person feel bad about it.

I don't know. Sometimes the core of an issue is that someone messed up, bullied someone, didn't listen, or something along those lines. In some cases people should feel bad. We don't have to go out of our way to make them feel bad. They did it to themselves. And, to be clear, they shouldn't feel condemned. They should feel like they have a productive path forward. But glossing over important issues to avoid uncomfortable feelings isn't really kind in the long run.

Empathy is admirable and humanizing, and maybe we are short on it, but I'm not sold that it's always kinder.

I think you can do both - be empathetic without glossing over the issue.

That's basically the idea of 'radical candor' (https://www.radicalcandor.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/rad...) and I think the main thing you're getting at.

I think you can be empathetic and direct. I just don't think you can always be productive while sparing feelings.

For example, when a relationship needs to end (a romantic break up, a firing, etc.), there's a limited amount one can do to make someone feel good about themselves. To some degree our challenge in that sort of conversation is to limit our empathy for the purposes of doing the right thing.

In other words, when someone phrases something reasonably kindly and it's not taken well, we can't blame the speaker for the listener's hurt feelings. At some point, even if they're hurt, it's the listener's fault. That judgement can seem cold and maybe counter-intuitive. However, on the contrary, that's just an example of how empathy gets in the way of what is right.

I think you're right that in those instances you won't be able to spare feelings. My comment about "not making the other person feel bad about it" is probably wrong in that sense, since you can be empathetic and it still may result in the other person feeling badly (like in your examples).

Though I think those cases should be the exception to the norm.

As far as empathy getting in the way - I think in the firing example while managers often feel an urge to be empathetic in a misdirected way (i.e. "this decision is hard for me too") true empathy would be recognizing that if you were the one being fired there is no good way to state it and however difficult it is for you to fire them - it doesn't compare.

I guess to reframe it, it's more about thinking about how the other person will be affected and doing the best you can given the circumstance.

"To some degree our challenge in that sort of conversation is to limit our empathy for the purposes of doing the right thing."

No, the empathetic thing in those situations is to end the relationship quickly precisely because you understand dragging it out will just damage the other party more in the long run.

Having a sense of when people "should" feel bad indicates a certain level of empathy, which just means being able to successfully understand what other people are probably feeling.

> I think a more specific word for this is empathy.

No - empathy just means feeling the same emotion as people around you, which is not always helpful. What you want is compassion.

I often see "empathy" tossed around as a cure-all for social problem. When someone gets angry at work and it makes you angry - that's empathy. Ever seen footage of a frenzied mob saluting a fascist dictator? That's empathy as well.

> No - empathy just means feeling the same emotion as people around you, which is not always helpful. What you want is compassion.

That's a particularly narrow definition of empathy, most definitions include something like the following:

"the ability to understand and share the feelings of another." [1]

The capacity for this is what helps - it makes it easier to understand how the other person is feeling.

As opposed to compassion:

"sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others." [2]

Empathy is a more general understanding of emotional state - I don't think it's being incorrectly used.

[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=define+empathy&oq=define+em&...

[2] https://www.google.com/search?q=define+empathy&oq=define+emp...

It is being used incorrectly though. Because understanding the other's emotions is not the solution. Thinking you can and should understand the other's emotions at all times is a mistake.

The OP suggested merely leaving open the possibility that your assumptions are wrong. That's really the opposite of understanding, it's expecting that you're not always going to understand, and making space for the other person to explain themselves and make things right.

> It takes a level of emotional intelligence to communicate in a way which gets to the core of the issue while not making the other person feel bad about it.

Hmm, seems more like you just have to assume that people aren't stupid, and there's a reason they believe the things they do. Until you understand that reason, you just have to keep saying you're confused and ask questions to further clarify.

Once the reason(s) is highlighted, sometimes it's well justified, sometimes it isn't, but at least the core issue can now be addressed.