"Empathy: the ability to understand and share the feelings of another."
Expecting people to have empathy is not vague. Expecting people to be honest is
also not vague. I’m sure we all *have* empathy and that it’s a perfectly
reasonable requirement of our community members.
I think your issue is not that empathy is vaguely defined but that it is
difficult to practice well when participants are remote. And I completely agree
with you. It is hard to read other people’s emotion states. I’ve certainly
erred in that judgement myself (and not just once!). That is not the same as
saying we shouldn’t try, or that, if we fail, that no mistake was really made
because the term is so vague.
It might be that the term "empathy" is sufficiently ambiguous to warrant a
replacement but I’m mindful that few words are rigidly defined, most carry two
or more senses. Attempts to coin new terms with precisely one meaning have also
failed ("refactor", to name one, has lost its sole reason for existing through
constant misuse).
I’m not as confident as you that "honest" is not vague. You might think that
because your peer group broadly agree on its meaning, but that’s obviously not
the same thing at all.
Summary: Acknowledging that one cannot always accurately know the emotional
state of another is not an argument against empathy, it is an argument for
empathy.
To save this going on forever, are you vetoing the use of the word "empathy"?
If so, can you suggest alternate wording that captures the intent? That does
not include removing it and replacing it with different virtues like honesty.
B.
On 19 Jul 2014, at 15:47, Benoit Chesneau <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 3:30 PM, Joan Touzet <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Again, I am -1 on this. Having awareness of the emotional state of others
>> has proven time and again to be of critical importance, especially in this
>> community where tempers have flared.
>
> You don't have any possibility to know what is the emotional state of
> the other. Except if you live in his head. These are just guess and
> prone to error. Especially via mail.
>
>>
>> If you don't like the word empathy, we need to add back in this concept
>> at the very top level, within the first few words - NOT past the colon.
>
> I don't like relying on something vague and prone to conflict. Which
> one will be the more empathic in your view. The one that follow the
> opinion or the one that doesn't think you are empathetic with him? Who
> will be the more empathetic?
>
> Honesty however is not a vague concept. Neither is trust ie the
> belief that someone or something is reliable, good, honest, effective,
> etc.
>
> where empathy is: the feeling that you understand and share another
> person's experiences and emotions : the ability to share someone
> else's feelings.
>
> The feeling...
