pull down to refresh

The problem always with these scientists is that they're not empathic enough to work outside of academia. Hence they have to come up with these silly theories. Honestly, if you're a real empath, you can empathize with all, and there's no such thing as a double empathy problem.
The empath however is never understood, and usually is avoided/disregarded/demonized as they are too confrontational and too much of a mirror. Because it would be incredibly scary if they could read you. You can't hide behind your mask anymore, and your whole identity you invested so badly in crumbles in their presence.
Better to deny, be jealous of, or bully (proving they have a read on you).
This is why mental illnesses/divergences will never get fixed within the academic or pharmaceutic paradigm, because they simply don't have the empathic range to understand the issues at the deepest level. It's feeling, not thinking that delivers the cure. And often people are not sick, (but only labeled as) they just grow up in sick societies that are ill adapted to their specific needs.
this territory is moderated
0 sats \ 5 replies \ @ek OP 1h
Sounds like you're not empathetic enough to understand where this theory is coming from
reply
Tell me
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @ek OP 1h
Doesn't #1290442 sound to you like a problem with empathy on both sides of the political spectrum?
reply
I was replying to the article, not your (or kepfords) personal situation.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @ek OP 1h
This isn’t my personal situation, so I assume you didn’t even click the link.
I only mentioned it because you said, "there’s no such thing as a double empathy problem," but in my opinion, #1290442 is a counterexample.
reply
I guess it is always a double empathy problem as long as not one of the parties is empathic. It's a theory for non-empathic people.
reply