# Is empathy related to functions?



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

ferroequinologist said:


> Sorry, but this way of describing the functions strikes me as overly simplistic. You describe the functions as if they are tools in a tool box that you can pull out whenever you want. "I normally prefer using my wrench, but this time, I'm going to use my screwdriver." or something similar.
> 
> But the functions operate with _and_ against each other. For instance, for me, Fe is like my anti-Fi. It is a function that acts negatively on me. Whenever I come face to face with Fe expressions, I am forced to either surpress my own Fi feelings, or to act against the Fe. One thing I cannot be is neutral. This would mean that ,for me, empathy would act negatively on me or in/through me. Does this mean I can only express or have antipathy? I can't see that, nor accept this.
> 
> Empathy, sympathy, etc. are separate from the functions, and ought not be connected in a direct way with any function. The same, I would say for deduction and induction. Neither belong to either Ti or Te. These are skills, habits, learned behavior, etc. IMO, we learn them best from our parents/family growing up. When picked up then, they can be natural and quite positive. But when these are ignored or suppressed in childhood, it becomes much harder as an adult to gain these traits. That has been my experience. And it has nothing to do with jungian functions.


Then I think you misunderstand my meaning.

You are assuming deliberate forethought of function use. I'm being descriptive not prescriptive. It's like when people say being shy has nothing to do with introversion. That is not true. Shyness is an introverted characteristic because it involves a negative relation to the object and putting a focus on the subject. With that said, it doesn't mean that only people who prefer introversion are shy or that people who prefer extraversion are never shy.

I think of it like boxes. You have a box called "shyness" that you put into another box called "introversion." You identify as an introvert and thus put yourself in the "introversion" box, but that doesn't mean that you are in the "shyness" box that is inside the "introversion" box.

Furthermore, and to be clear, I never suggested that empathy is actually related to a function. It actually seems to be related to an attitude as I posted earlier. The point I was making is irrelevant to functions.


----------



## ferroequinologist (Jul 27, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> Then I think you misunderstand my meaning.


I think it was more a concern how it would be taken, and honestly, it wasn't very clear how much you were separating empathy from functions, to be honest. I should have been more questioning in my reply (requesting clarification) than just being categorical. My bad.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

ferroequinologist said:


> I think it was more a concern how it would be taken, and honestly, it wasn't very clear how much you were separating empathy from functions, to be honest. I should have been more questioning in my reply (requesting clarification) than just being categorical. My bad.


Well communication is a two way street. Perhaps I could have been clearer as well.


----------



## NeFiLia (Feb 27, 2015)

I don't know if you guys have seen the talk about the emphatic civilization, is a ted talk I believe, and it talks about mirror neurons, and how empathy is at the core of our humanity and evolution, I think although we are all empathic, as has been mentioned some people act on it more than others, and also some people might be more empathic than others I think that is safe to assume. Then when we are developing, growing up it would make sense that depending on our experiences the empathy we have is gonna affect how we develop our functions, if we let empathy get the best of us we are most likely going to develop as feelers, I think that would make sense, but I could be wrong.


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

Define empathy. You have no basis of an argument until you do so.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

NeFiLia said:


> I don't know if you guys have seen the talk about the emphatic civilization, is a ted talk I believe, and it talks about mirror neurons, and how empathy is at the core of our humanity and evolution, I think although we are all empathic, as has been mentioned some people act on it more than others, and also some people might be more empathic than others I think that is safe to assume. Then when we are developing, growing up it would make sense that depending on our experiences the empathy we have is gonna affect how we develop our functions, if we let empathy get the best of us we are most likely going to develop as feelers, I think that would make sense, but I could be wrong.


You are correct and there is one particular brand of people who do not experience empathy at all, and those people are labeled with antisocial disorder (psychopathy). The reason they don't experience empathy is due to how their brain is wired. They are simply biologically incapable to experience it, which is why they can do the stuff they do to other people and not concern them. 

@PaladinX


> Shyness is an introverted characteristic because it involves a negative relation to the object and putting a focus on the subject.


Why? You seem to operate with a definition of shyness that is not in agreement with the colloquial understanding of a fearful feeling towards the external world, which in itself does not imply introversion. One can still for example, be interested by the world, and yet experience fear towards it. It doesn't say anything about how you process information. Similarly then, is fear in itself a result of introversion since fear is a feeling that is always directed at a particular object aka external threat and creates a reaction to move away from it? 

That seems like an odd way to define introversion-extroversion, to me. I'm with @ferroequinologist here. The way I see it, "shyness" is a box that is not a property of anything, and therefore can be found in a multitude of other boxes including an extroverted one.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

It is loosely connected.
In the way that someone seeing everything the lens of worth is more probable to pick up on it.
While someone preoccupied with labeling everything will more probably miss it.
Once discovered for real there is no limitation for any functional stacking to it's usage.
All human emotion and sentiment is available to all from the outset, yet some ignore parts of themself.
This is true for both feelers and thinkers.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Entropic said:


> You are correct and there is one particular brand of people who do not experience empathy at all, and those people are labeled with antisocial disorder (psychopathy). The reason they don't experience empathy is due to how their brain is wired. They are simply biologically incapable to experience it, which is why they can do the stuff they do to other people and not concern them.
> 
> @_PaladinX_
> 
> ...


No one said you couldn't...



> That seems like an odd way to define introversion-extroversion, to me. I'm with @_ferroequinologist_ here. The way I see it, "shyness" is a box that is not a property of anything, and therefore *can be found in a multitude of other boxes including an extroverted one*.


In what way is shyness a positive relation to the object?

EDIT: To be clear, I never said that Shyness is a property of Introversion.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

emberfly said:


> Define empathy. You have no basis of an argument until you do so.


Empathy is the capacity to understand what another person is experiencing from within the other person's frame of reference, i.e., the capacity to place oneself in another's shoes.

Taken from Wikipedia


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

NeFiLia said:


> I don't know if you guys have seen the talk about the emphatic civilization, is a ted talk I believe, and it talks about mirror neurons, and how empathy is at the core of our humanity and evolution, I think although we are all empathic, as has been mentioned some people act on it more than others, and also some people might be more empathic than others I think that is safe to assume. Then when we are developing, growing up it would make sense that depending on our experiences the empathy we have is gonna affect how we develop our functions, if we let empathy get the best of us we are most likely going to develop as feelers, I think that would make sense, but I could be wrong.


Yes, I believe this is correct. I have come across mirror neurons before.

The part I'm question is this indeed related to the T/F dimension or to specific functions, or is empathy unrelated. How one deals with it is colored by their type?


----------



## luc (Jun 12, 2015)

I think it would probably have something to do if they are a healthy or unhealthy [FUNCTION]


----------



## Tetsuo Shima (Nov 24, 2014)

There are different kinds of empathy. My Fi helps me feel things deeply, and my Ne helps me feel what other people are feeling.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> No one said you couldn't...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


In what way is shyness moving away from the object outside of the definition I offered, here? Which I don't see as very solid?


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Entropic said:


> In what way is shyness moving away from the object outside of the definition I offered, here? Which I don't see as very solid?


It doesn't per say have to "move away" from the object, it just needs to be a negative reaction towards the object, or a non-positive reaction towards the object for it to be classified as introversion. Shyness isnt a positive reaction, nor a positive movement towards the object in any form of its definition thereby making it a quality of introversion. That's if you go by Jungs definition though, if you don't then you can just change the definition of extroversion, or introversion to whatever you want it to be where shyness can be a quality of extroversion, but if we are using Jung for definition purposes then shyness which is not a positive reaction reaction in relation the object, but a negative one due to the receding nature of the individual.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Atrium Strutionum said:


> It doesn't per say have to "move away" from the object, it just needs to be a negative reaction towards the object, or a non-positive reaction towards the object for it to be classified as introversion. Shyness isnt a positive reaction, nor a positive movement towards the object in any form of its definition thereby making it a quality of introversion. That's if you go by Jungs definition though, if you don't then you can just change the definition of extroversion, or introversion to whatever you want it to be where shyness can be a quality of extroversion, but if we are using Jung for definition purposes then shyness which is not a positive reaction reaction in relation the object, but a negative one due to the receding nature of the individual.


Yeah, then I take issue with his definition of introversion here, in the sense that I don't agree with the qualities he's attributing to it. I tend to view more as a psychic orientation in how we process information. By the same token, would repulsion also then be a quality of introversion?


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Entropic said:


> Yeah, then I take issue with his definition of introversion here, in the sense that I don't agree with the qualities he's attributing to it. I tend to view more as a psychic orientation in how we process information. *By the same token, would repulsion also then be a quality of introversion?*


By Jungian definition? Yes, along with any other action that is negative in relation to the object. 

This is making me think about the concepts of extroversion and introversion a little more deeply, using Jung's definitions that is. He goes over those concepts and references functions to them, but never states whether or not introversion/extroversion are the sum of the functions that utilize them, or are they something more encompassing, is there more area to them than just the functions? 

What I mean is, that I don't think that repulsion and shyness has to be attributed to one introverted function or the sum of, or even have to be a quality of function at all, but can be in the realm of introversion outside of the functions themselves. 

Idk, thats going to have to be analyzed later, but as to your question, yes repulsion by Jungs definition would be a quality of introversion because of its negative reaction to the object.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Atrium Strutionum said:


> By Jungian definition? Yes, along with any other action that is negative in relation to the object.
> 
> This is making me think about the concepts of extroversion and introversion a little more deeply, using Jung's definitions that is. He goes over those concepts and references functions to them, but never states whether or not introversion/extroversion are the sum of the functions that utilize them, or are they something more encompassing, is there more area to them than just the functions?
> 
> ...


Trying to think of what I think is wrong with this, and I think my impression is similar to how I disagree with how some people say that smiling is a property of Fe in socionics. I would consider these proto-qualities, but not actual qualities in and of themselves.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Entropic said:


> Trying to think of what I think is wrong with this, and I think my impression is similar to how I disagree with how some people say that smiling is a property of Fe in socionics. I would consider these proto-qualities, but not actual qualities in and of themselves.


I agree with you that smiling isnt a sole quality of Fe. Smiling is an expression of gratification, and each function derives gratification differently. Smiling is an extraverted quality though, for the obvious reason that it is literally an extraverted form expression, just not one that any one extraverted function governs solely, but more or less a quality that all extraverted functions share in unison. 

Quality wise, all we can do is take both definitions and see how they relate, and in this case if we are using Jung's definitions then repulsion would be an introverted quality while smiling would be an extraverted quality. Whether people agree with it or not is a different story though.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Atrium Strutionum said:


> I agree with you that smiling isnt a sole quality of Fe. Smiling is an expression of gratification, and each function derives gratification differently. Smiling is an extraverted quality though, for the obvious reason that it is literally an extraverted form expression, just not one that any one extraverted function governs solely, but more or less a quality that all extraverted functions share in unison.
> 
> Quality wise, all we can do is take both definitions and see how they relate, and in this case if we are using Jung's definitions then repulsion would be an introverted quality while smiling would be an extraverted quality. Whether people agree with it or not is a different story though.


Yes, I understand what you mean by that, and when I say I think it's more of a proto-quality I mean that because these qualities are inherent to being human, it's a part of human evolution, they lack a certain level of sophistication for it to be an actual and true quality that would be solely governed or a property of X. Instead, they are more akin to precursors.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Entropic said:


> In what way is *shyness moving away from the object outside* of the definition I offered, here? Which I don't see as very solid?


I wonder what you think this means. I feel like you are arguing against an implication or inference that is not obvious to me. To be clear, I am talking about the direction of interest or focus.

As for information process I think you are limiting the scope of what Jung was defining. Here is a passage from Jung where he describes introverts as shy in general:



> Everyone knows those reserved, inscrutable, rather shy people who form the strongest possible contrast to the open, sociable, jovial, or at least friendly and approachable characters who are on good terms with everybody, or quarrel with everybody, but always relate to them in some way and in turn are affected by them.





Atrium Strutionum said:


> By Jungian definition? Yes, along with any other action that is negative in relation to the object.
> ...
> What I mean is, that I don't think that repulsion and shyness has to be attributed to one introverted function or the sum of, or even have to be a quality of function at all, but can be in the realm of introversion outside of the functions themselves.
> 
> Idk, thats going to have to be analyzed later, but as to your question, yes repulsion by Jungs definition would be a quality of introversion because of its negative reaction to the object.


I'm not so sure I'd necessarily consider repulsion an act of introversion. A positive relation could be that society finds something repulsive and thus so do you. Shyness seems much more personal.



> This is making me think about the concepts of extroversion and introversion a little more deeply, using Jung's definitions that is. He goes over those concepts and references functions to them, but never states whether or not introversion/extroversion are the sum of the functions that utilize them, or are they something more encompassing, is there more area to them than just the functions?


I think they are. Despite the popular focus on function first, Jung actually describes extraversion and introversion as superordinate categories which he then tries to narrow down further with the functions. Extraversion and introversion are attitudes of consciousness/unconsciousness. He describes this first, then moves on to Thinking, Feeling, Sensation, and Intuition in their respective attitudes.



> In two previous contributions upon the theory of types[73] I did not differentiate the thinking and feeling from the introverted and extraverted types, but identified the thinking type with the introverted, and the feeling with the extraverted. But *a more complete investigation of the material has shown me that we must treat the introversion and the extraversion types as superordinated categories to the function types.* Such a division, moreover, entirely corresponds with experience, since, for example, there are, undoubtedly two sorts of feeling-types, the attitude of one being orientated more by his feeling-experience, the other more by the object.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> I wonder what you think this means. I feel like you are arguing against an implication or inference that is not obvious to me. To be clear, I am talking about the direction of interest or focus.
> 
> As for information process I think you are limiting the scope of what Jung was defining. Here is a passage from Jung where he describes introverts as shy in general:


And I disagree with this and think it is fallacious to link behavioral traits too much with a particular attitude of anything. I think they often correlate but most certainly do not causate. Then there's the part that Jung also deemed a majority of people to actually be ambiverts. 




> I'm not so sure I'd necessarily consider repulsion an act of introversion. A positive relation could be that society finds something repulsive and thus so do you. Shyness seems much more personal.


I am thinking of things such as feeling repulsed by a physically repulsive object e.g. smelling eggs.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Entropic said:


> And I disagree with this and think it is fallacious to link behavioral traits too much with a particular attitude of anything. *I think they often correlate but most certainly do not causate.* Then there's the part that Jung also deemed a majority of people to actually be ambiverts.


But no one is saying that there is a causation... As I mentioned to @_ferroequinologist_ I am being descriptive not prescriptive. I am being strictly categorical. I think you keep reading into something that I really don't think is there.

Let's look at another context. Jung also said that depression is always an introverted condition. Do you think he means to imply that introverts are always depressed and extraverts never are?




> I am thinking of things such as feeling repulsed by a physically repulsive object e.g. smelling eggs.


Then it can be a number of factors I think. Categorically, I'd put it somewhere between Sensation and Feeling. Not to be confused with Se/Si/Fe/Fi.


Furthermore, what does any of this have to do with empathy?


----------



## NeFiLia (Feb 27, 2015)

this is the ted talk I was talking about btw: https://www.ted.com/talks/jeremy_rifkin_on_the_empathic_civilization


----------



## The Dude (May 20, 2010)

If a person doesn't have empathy they are a sociopath. I think F types, especially Fi's, are more comfortable expressing empathy and will do it more often. It is relating to others that are down and out through our own experience.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Empathy is a trait shared by most people that has been connected to a type of neuron in the brain, mirror neurons. These neurons can replicate the emotional affects a person observes in another. So if you see a person crying, your mirror neurons will produce a feeling of sadness in you, and in some cases and in some people maybe even tears. So this is at least part of the physiological reason we have empathy. And all psychologically healthy people have this capacity to some degree. At the same time, it isn't hard to see that empathy appears to be closely connected to Fe since Fe operates by feeling what others feel. This doesn't necessarily mean empathy _is _Fe, only that Fe uses empathy in its basic operation, moreso than any other function.

So, yeah, I think empathy is connected to Fe.

Fi, otoh, is more _sympathy _than empathy: _knowing _what others feel because Fi itself would feel the same way vs _feeling _what others feel.

But both sympathy and empathy--both Fi and Fe--can produce the same feelings of concern and desire to help and comfort. They just arise by different means.


----------

