Have You Been Saved? Part V--Empathy

Have you been SAVED?

Part V--Empathy

With this, our fifth installment, we are very nearly finished with our series. To be sure we have the proper context, let us briefly go over some of the main points we have already covered. SAVED is a method of managing the emotional levels of a conflict in order to reach a rational solution. Emotions are not evil, but illogical emotional snares can disable one’s ability to settle a dispute. We have already dealt with Safety, Attention and Value. In this article we will focus upon Empathy and leave Decency for the next article.

A person that is already upset can easily become hostile and even physically aggressive if his words or actions are taken out of context or misconstrued. If however he can tell his side of the story and be understood, then a mutual solution can usually be reached in a calm, intelligent way. The problem is that this person may not have the verbal tools to make himself comprehensible. It is like the famous poster in the 1970’s which read;

“I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I’m not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.”

“Words, like eyeglasses, blur everything that they do not make more clear.”
—Joseph Joubert

The other person wants to be understood, but lacks the tools or is caught up in the emotion of the moment and is not communicating effectively; therefore, it is our task to help him out, that is, to intelligently guide the other person through telling his side of the story.

Empathy is the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to the feelings, thoughts and experience of another. As such, it will provide the most meaningful insights on how to proceed with a person. Other conflict resolution strategies will encourage sympathy for the other person in an attempt to get them to feel that you are on their side, but there are some problems with this.

How can we better understand people? By not doing all the talking. The human body is equipped with two ears and one mouth, which means that we should listen twice as much as we speak. Yes, there will be a need to interject every now and then to keep on topic and to avoid emotional snares, but for the most part, put a sock in it.

“The opposite of talking isn’t listening. The opposite of talking is waiting.”
--Fran Lebowitz

Of course, if the other person is already hostile, encouraging him to vent can cause some problems unless you set some boundaries. Most communication is non lingual—that is, most of our understanding comes from tone, context, body language, etc rather than the actual words used. Keep the volume subdued. The louder he gets, the quieter you get. In a wolf pack, you can always tell the alpha as the one who has a calm quietness about him, the one that doesn’t immediately shrink away or feel the need to prove his leadership with violence. The loud ones are the challengers, but the alpha doesn’t have to be loud—he is in control. Make sure your body language is not threatening, and make sure you are not communicating submission or fear, or he may interpret your quietness as weakness.

In our multicultural society, not all of us are on the same page when it comes to non-verbal cues (and even language), so often people send mixed messages without realizing it. One example is personal space. In the United States that space is usually about two to three feet. Anything closer, and it is a violation of personal space. In Japan, however, that space is four to five feet, and in other places it is much closer. Being aware of the cultural distances can help prevent unwanted tension.

I’m sure most of you have encountered someone who communicates in ways that make you wish you had an interpreter (especially with different genders). For example, when my wife says, “What time is it?” I often hear, “Hurry up.” This is not what she intended to say, and I am jumping to conclusions. This can get dangerous when conclusions or judgments are made based upon preconceived notions or misconceptions, and that can provide the fuel for the situation to escalate. To better comprehend this, we must examine how we interpret information.

Think of the lens of your eye. It is a transparent convex layer of tissue that is uniquely designed to bring into focus information from the outside world. Not all lenses are created equal. If you wanted to get behind my eyes and see things from my perspective, you would have a problem because I wear prescription glasses. To understand the way I see things would require you to translate my lenses to yours. When both parties do this, the result is mutual understanding. So let’s do just that: translate LENSES. (You guessed it; LENSES is an acronym)

Language—the use of a specific word in one area of a country can have an entirely different meaning in another. For example: The word ‘dinner’ in some places refers to the evening meal, while in many Southern states, it refers to the noon meal. The word ‘judge’ can mean ‘determine’ or it can mean ‘condemn’, which are slightly different definitions, so be careful to get clear definitions of key words when he is talking.

Environment—sometimes our surroundings will affect our perceptions and reactions. Comfort zones differ from person to person. For example: Put a long-tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs and try to enter into a discussion with the cat. You may find the cat is a bit distracted while you (the one without the tail) aren’t. It may be that there are others around with whom he doesn’t wish to share the information you are asking for, so don’t be afraid to ask if the other person is comfortable having a discussion in your current location.

Nervous habits and triggers—knee jerk responses often get in the way of effective communication. A person who has hearing difficulties may speak louder than others are comfortable with. Another person may interpret the volume as aggression or hostility, when in reality; the speaker is deaf as a post. Other people have similar adverse reactions to people who point when they talk while the pointer is simply trying to make a point…*sigh*.

Stereotypes and stigmas— You may have preconceived notions that have nothing to do with this person. Would your attitude change towards a person after finding out that he is a member of the Ku Klux Klan? Other demographic classifications carry similar preconceptions that may not be valid, especially specific to your situation. Favoring a certain style of music does not mean that his political views are predictable. Similarly, how a person chooses to dress does not give you a crystal ball into his mind. It can give you clues, but those clues are not usually absolute.

Experience—Negative experiences can color your interpretation of a given circumstance. A jilted lover who has only bad memories of suitors may overreact when approached by an interested party. This is not a stereotype, but a precautionary tactic based on previous incidents.

Special Circumstances—This is the catchall category, covering anything too specific for broad classification. For example: Jack nervously offers a spoonful of a special family goulash to his girlfriend, Jill, a chef. Jill spits it into the sink, gagging and sputtering. Jack’s feelings are hurt at her reaction, and he becomes angry at her lack of sensitivity. What Jack doesn’t know is that her reaction had nothing to do with taste, but rather the fact that she is allergic the main ingredient in the recipe.

Evaluation of a situation or person must come after empathy. To do otherwise would be like a

scientist writing his conclusion before he had done any research. If we provide an outlet for his situation, then it may be enough to keep him from losing his temper, or if it is lost, to help him regain it. At this stage it is crucial to point out that empathy means understanding without condemnation. Taking the time to understand a person only to condemn defeats the purpose. If you are in a context where your job requires you to make a judgment, then be sure to focus on the behavior, not the person. (i.e. ‘the rules of this workplace state that xyz is prohibited, and so while you are free to believe xyz, we cannot allow that behavior here’). We all have a right to champion what we believe to be right, and to come against what is wrong, but condemnation is not a part of that. In other words, we can call ‘bad’ bad, but it is not always our place to eradicate the ‘bad’. (Give someone that power and it won’t be long before the definition of ‘bad’ swings around and you may find yourself on the chopping block. Ask a Holocaust survivor if you don’t believe me.)

In conclusion, listen to the other person. Keep the discussion calm and rational. Take pains to understand his language, how the setting affects him, what triggers may be present that can skew his judgment, what stereotypes may be in play, what his experience might be telling him and anything else that might cause a misinterpretation of the situation. If you can do this in a controlled manner, you may be able to get to the heart of the problem and fix it.