Empathic Failure

[andrewducker]

One of the strange attitudes on the spoilers post is that of people who seem insistent on telling me how I should enjoy movies.  That I pay too much attention to plot, or that I just shouldn't enjoy a movie less if I know how it's going to turn out.

This seems to be a common thread in discussion on the internet - one person says "I don't like X." and a bunch of people say that not enjoying X is immature, or that it's not that bad, or that they like X a lot, or that  they can't see X at all. 

And they don't seem to be providing this information for general cultural reasons, but in denial that the original person is "correct" to feel the way they do in the first place.

It's something I've seen repeatedly, that if unhappy people would just stop being unhappy then everything would be fine.  That they shouldn't complain about people doing things they don't like - because if they'd just learn to like people doing things they didn't like then nothing would have to change, and everyone would be happy.

You don't have to agree with people who complain - if you feel differently then you feel differently.  You don't have to stop doing the thing they feel unhappy about - that's your judgement to make.  But to hear people expressing their feelings on something and then express anger, disbelief or scorn because they have those feelings strikes me as a basic lack of empathy.

It's an attitude that completely baffles me.

Comments

[endless-psych.livejournal.com]

It's not a lack of empathy. It comes more from not believing that whatever you are doing will cause harm. When being told it does cause harm you can accept this and challenge your self image (which I would hold in most cases is "someone who doesn't do harm") and apologise. Or you can paint spoiler phobes as the bad guys.

The latter option is easier I'd wager. (I also reckon most people do this for either one thing or another)

probably repeating things that have already been said, but can't be bothered transplanting my say

[marrog.livejournal.com]

I dunno, I think that the behaviour you're describing there pretty much shows a lack of empathy. Not believing that something will cause harm is failing to see how it will. Which denotes a lack of empathy.

Andy, I haven't read the original post yet (although I will) but I agree. It simply astounds me the way in which people seem to enjoy willfully deflating people when - and this is the key thing - it causes them basically little to no inconvenience.

I mean, it's a matter of degrees, and about managing expectations against what is rational to expect against what is convenient or reasonable or not that big a deal.

For example:

Person A doesn't want you to spoil the end of Titanic for them. Person A is a moron. The disaster was nearly a hundred years ago. If they don't know what happens, they deserve to be spoiled.

Person B doesn't want to know the end of Season 3 BSG. This was over a year ago now, and honestly, if you talked openly about it you could be forgiven for saying "really, if you care that much you should know by now." However we all know that we didn't want to be spoiled ourselves in our day, and it would be easy and not a huge fuss to chuck it behind a cut or, in the case of 'real life' go "Oh, wait, have you seen it? Oh, cover your ears..." before continuing. And maybe keeping the information general rather than specific would be nice too, just in case - after all, unless it's an in-depth discussion, which a spoiler-phobe can probably be trusted to avoid, then you probably don't need to make mention of, say, the status of specific characters.

Then Person C doesn't want to know the end of, say, Season 2 Ashes to Ashes, which finished a matter of weeks ago if that. If you mess this up for someone who hasn't quite managed to see it yet you are just being a prick. No, they don't have to read your journal. Yes, they could avoid the whole internet for fear that everyone is as much of an arsehole as you. Or you could stop being such a smug cock.

/my 2p

Re: probably repeating things that have already been said, but can't be bothered transplanting my sa

[endless-psych.livejournal.com]

Actually if it's done on purpose someone by definition must have a sense of empathty.

All I contend is that maintaining someones opinion is wrong does not indicate a lack of empathy. Sheer bloody mindedness perhaps but will that person care less if a small child is kicked? Doubtful.

Re: probably repeating things that have already been said, but can't be bothered transplanting my sa

[endless-psych.livejournal.com]

Pah can't edit posts.

The stuff in my original comment is a result of being empathetic and needing to find a reason to acknowledge why you weren't.

If someone is arsey about having inadvertently spoiled something for you it doesn't indicate a lack of empathy. A lack of empathy would be indicated by a more apathetic response. A shrugging off as oppossed to a (to varying degrees of arseyness) "don't take things so seriously" kinda thing.

Re: probably repeating things that have already been said, but can't be bothered transplanting my sa

[andrewducker]

Is there a word for "an inability to believe that someone can feel something different to oneself"?

Re: probably repeating things that have already been said, but can't be bothered transplanting my sa

[e-halmac.livejournal.com]

I am now completely paranoid that I've said something to spoil something for someone at some point or points.

I hate the idea that someone might think a person would do it on purpose - it's dumb, and yeah causes them basically little to no inconvenience to shut up to please someone else. Particularly bothered as marrog just mentioned Ashes to Ashes, which we were talking about at the weekend...

I'm also paranoid that disagreeing with people or discussing something is gonna offend someone. I totally respect that someone can have an opinion about something that I disagree with. Generally I'm not bothered, but might want to discuss it heatedly, with no offence intended in the long term. I like dicsusing stuff and don't get to do it often in a meaningful way.

I used an example of a friend never having seen Empire, so not getting a cultural reference in another movie - I was "shocked" she'd neer seen it, but only becuase I assumed everyone had been made to watch it when they were wee, like me. I wasn't all that bothered she'd not seen it or not, or whether she'd have liked it if she had.

I wish I could be bothered about differences of opinion and not take it personally. I think/hope I'm getting better at it.

Re: probably repeating things that have already been said, but can't be bothered transplanting my sa

[andrewducker]

Wouldn't worry about it too much. Everyone says things they wish they hadn't some time - and our friends generally forgive us. Mine have certainly forgiven me for enough stupid things in my time :->

Nobody's perfect, so long as you're trying you're doing well!

Re: probably repeating things that have already been said, but can't be bothered transplanting my sa

[marrog.livejournal.com]

I used Ashes to Ashes because we discussed it at the weekend, yeah, although (a) you didn't spoil it; (b) Erin probably wouldn't have minded and (c) I saw the first series already, so I wouldn't worry too much!

Re: probably repeating things that have already been said, but can't be bothered transplanting my sa

[nmg.livejournal.com]

I mean, it's a matter of degrees, and about managing expectations against what is rational to expect against what is convenient or reasonable or not that big a deal.

I couldn't agree more. My (original) context for the discussion was that a friend considered that "everyone dies in the end" was an unacceptable spoiler for a Shakespearean tragedy (it's also not strictly true, given that Fortinbras and Horatio both survive). I believe that Hamlet is cultural common knowledge, and thus fair game for discussion without spoiler warnings; even if people haven't seen or read the play, they will most likely be able to quote one or more lines from it, and many will have a rough idea of the basics of the plot.

I agree with your judgements on the three cases you list. The person who spoiled C is being a twit. In the case of B, I might err on the side of caution, but if I were spoiled I'd consider it at least partly my fault for not getting around to watching it. Person A has unreasonable expectations, quite clearly, and seems to believe that the world revolves around them.

In the previous discussion, I suggested a couple of rules of thumb for judging whether spoiler warnings were necessary based on whether there were places in popular culture where knowledge of a particular was clearly assumed. For example, if Family Guy runs a parody of the original Star Wars trilogy, it's clear that they expect the majority of their audience to get the references. Similarly, a general knowledge pub quiz question that asked the name of the sledge in Citizen Kane would suggest that this particular fact about CK was trivia that people might be expected to know (I can't remember who suggested pub quizzes as a yardstick, but they were spot-on).

Andy and I appear to differ on this. Whether this makes me a child-kicking unempathic sod, or merely someone who has decided that he is tired of pandering to the unreasonable demands of delicate flowers is for others to judge.

Re: probably repeating things that have already been said, but can't be bothered transplanting my sa

[andrewducker]

Andy and I appear to differ on this. Whether this makes me a child-kicking unempathic sod, or merely someone who has decided that he is tired of pandering to the unreasonable demands of delicate flowers is for others to judge.

That depends. I'm not clear on whether you don't believe the act hurts me (unempathic) or do believe me, but have decided that the effort of posting spoiler warnings is greater than you are willing to put in (tired).

[blackmanxy.livejournal.com]

This is pretty much what I was going to say, only phrased rather more diplomatically.

[likeneontubing.livejournal.com]

I totally agree with this, (especially the challenging your self image part), but think that it does show a lack of empathy if the person is unwilling to see or acknowledge that they did cause harm to another, (albeit minor harm etc).

They have the choice of examining their self image or not... and choose to totally dismiss the feelings of the other person as stupid. They may be able to empathise, but they deliberately choose not to, showing at the very least a lack of empathy applied in this situation.

[endless-psych.livejournal.com]

Well I would contend the situation only ever arises because the person can empathise. That's were the internal conflict, that is resolved by deciding the other persons feelings are trivial (in the case of spoilers I'll add that although it pisses me off when such things are revealed it is more then reasonable to assume such things to be trivial...).

The conflict of self image doesn't occur if there isn't any empathy. The event is just shrugged off and forgotten about by the transgressor.

As an example I suspect folks with Autism, lacking as they do a theory of mind - kinda essential for empathy, upon revealing a spoiler will either appear not to care when the spoilee complains or apologise in a rote fashion (IE. In a kind of learned response type way). I'd suspect they wouldn't feel the need to diminish the spoilees views precisely because they don't feel the empathy that causes the conflict... yadda yadda etc etc

[likeneontubing.livejournal.com]

Hmm, I can see what you mean definitely. I'm just arguing about trivialities really - it's just that the person doesn't apply their empathy to the situation you see, which to me is a lack. They do have it *somewhere* but they choose not to use it, and instead belittle the other person to avoid looking at their self image even slightly.

[andrewducker]

Yeah - saw a fair amount of this in discssions of racism online.
Person A: That thing you said reinforces racial stereotypes. Please don't do that.
Person B: I'M NOT RACIST! I CAN WRITE WHATEVER I LIKE! HOW DARE YOU???

[random-redhead.livejournal.com]

It is in part, I think, because when person A says I don't like/ didn't enjoy/ found gaping plot holes in X, to person B it feels like a critism. An implied "you are wrong to like X, it shows your tastes are poor/ unsophisticated". Person B feels the need to defend X to defend the value of their opinion as a whole.

I am really good at getting caught up in films, I feel really sorry for people who can't let go of continuity errors, I think I get more enjoyment. Unless the getting to talk about the thing you have spotted, therefore showing your superior watching skillz, provides pleasure.

[andrewducker]

I vary a lot with continuity errors. Something like Star Trek, I don't care. It had massive plot holes, and was still a great fun romp. Something where the plot rests on the continuity (like a murder mystery) I'm much more sensitive to - because if you're following along and trying to work it out with them, then discovering that the puzzle is broken is annoying.

[aliiis.livejournal.com]

THIS! EXACTLY THIS! Thanks Andy. I had a bad experience recently with saying I didn't really enjoy a film as much as I'd thought I was going to (not cos of spoilers, I thought it was slightly disappointing and had certain flaws). Why is it not ok to say that?
I also think people could be a little clearer on the distinction between saying 'I don't enjoy x' and 'x is BAD'. Definitely not the same!

[xquiq.livejournal.com]

Where I tend to see this is conversations online that go something like:

Person A: I feel upset by X
Person B: Don't get it / get over it / that's odd
Person A: Yeah, but I feel upset by X - you need to get that
Person B: Okay, you're upset, but sorry still don't get it
Person A: Yeah, but I feel upset by X - you need to get that
Person B: Okay, you're upset, but sorry still don't get it

& numerous variations on the theme until someone gets bored or a flame war breaks out.

What probably needs to happen in this scenario is that the two individuals stop talking about it. Person B is never going to understand person A's perspective and person A is not going to change that.

Fundamentally though, I don't subscribe to 'everyone's feelings are absolutely valid & they can express them without challenge all the time'. I think it's true most of the time, but I can think of plenty of examples where people get upset / angry where they have absolutely no right to do so or where their views are actively unpleasant. It's fair to say that none of these are in the world of film or literary criticism though ;)

[ninebelow.livejournal.com]

If someone told you they only ate crisp sandwiches, isn't it possible you would express disbelief? And if they replied "But I like them!" would that really make a difference?

[andrewducker]

I might express surprise, but I have a friend who mostly exists on macaroni cheese and chips with ketchup, so I wouldn't express disbelief. It's a funny world we live in.

[laserboy.livejournal.com]

Having lived with the guy, I still find it hard to believe. ;-)

[laserboy.livejournal.com]

Bear in mind the very nature of how things are discussed on the internet. That may skew the answers you're getting.

[andrewducker]

Absolutely. The internet makes it much easier to be misunderstood, and much harder to tell when people are being emotional about stuff.

[cartesiandaemon.livejournal.com]

I think there is an implicit value judgement on the different ways of watching. Compare my response if someone says "I didn't like $longbook. It was too full of words," or "I loved Dan Brown, his puzzles are so clever". I shouldn't encroach their freedom to enjoy something their way. But I definitely want to.

And that sort of difference of opinion occurs in other cases when it's less clear-cut, and people might legitimately have different experiences, yet feel compelled to justify their own.