andrewducker | Empathic Failure

Empathic Failure

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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only | Expand All

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.

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).

Tired mostly. I can believe that the act hurts you. However, your views on what constitutes a spoiler are such that I think you're being overly sensitive.

Don't take this as an attempt to tell you what you should be thinking, but rather as the suggestion that your expectations of the degree to which others will change their behaviour to suit you is unreasonable.

Consider an analogy with veganism. It's quite reasonable for a vegan dinner party guest to ask that I provide them with food that isn't derived from animals. It's unreasonable that they should demand that I *and my other guests* should submit to their self-imposed dietary constraints so as not to offend their sensibilities. I would argue that a vegan guest in the latter situation was indeed displaying a lack of empathy.

I don't actually expect people to change their behaviour significantly. I'm expecting them to understand me :->

I don't find my views overly sensitive. Dead simple so they are - I don't want to be told the endings of things I haven't seen. Now, I know people who don't want to be told _casting_ for upcoming things. To me _that_ is too sensitive. But meh, people feel how they feel, who am I to tell them that their feelings are wrong?

If you want to post spoilers in your own journal then that's totally your choice. I then have to decide whether having you on my friends list is worth it.

To give an example of this, dougs removed me for 24 hounts until the animated lion/bear cub was off his front page. I can choose to keep posting animated gifs, and eventually he'll get fed up and take me off his friends list entirely (presumably), or I can choose to avoid doing so (and not post some things that amuse me).

I'll probably continue to post the occasional one - but I'll bear in mind that it makes Doug unhappy when I do it, and it'll probably mean I post them less - or post larger ones under a cut.

I don't find my views overly sensitive. Dead simple so they are - I don't want to be told the endings of things I haven't seen.

That's a pretty absolute position, and one that you're displaying little flexibility over.

Several of us have argued that context plays a role, and that there's a spectrum of points after which common knowledge could be assumed and therefore after which uncut spoilers become fair game (one of my colleagues holds that spoilers are fair game after first terrestrial broadcast - I personally feel that this is a little harsh, but I accept his reasoning). Your view seems to be more along the lines of "once a spoiler, always a spoiler", and you don't seem to have engaged with any more liberal interpretations.

That's a pretty absolute position, and one that you're displaying little flexibility over.

I don't understand how I could display flexibility over explaining what upsets me. I'm not prescribing action for anyone - I'm describing the situation which makes me unhappy. If I changed the description then it would no longer be accurate.

Context does not play a role in how much it makes me unhappy. You telling me about context is not going to change that - why would you expect it to?

I'm telling you what spoils movies for me. How can I be flexible in that? I really don't understand what you're trying to say here.

If movies being spoilt causes you unhappiness rather then momentary frustration I'd be inclined to think you were taking things a little bit too seriously.

You're semantically quibbling here. Frustration is a kind of unhappiness. As is misery, depression, "being bothered", irked, and a whole bunch of other things.

To quibble on...

Frustration and being irked are more linked to anger I would say. "Being bothered" could be either anger or saddness.

Then again if you don't take unhappiness to be a synonym for saddness and just to mean "someone who isn't happy" then it covers... well nigh on every other emotion there is... ;)

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

andrewducker - 2009-07-16 13:07 (UTC) - Expand

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

endless-psych.livejournal.com - 2009-07-16 13:10 (UTC) - Expand

I think that for me, although I personally think Andy's a bit over-sensitive (and also doesn't have enough Culture, *grins*), I would still cut (most) stuff on my LJ because I'm happy to go to a small amount of trouble for the convenience of my friends.

But, although I personally would, I wouldn't think you were a bad person for not cutting something that was made a long time ago - I'd more likely think that it probably really just didn't occur to you, perhaps in the same way it would never occur to me not to mention that Macbeth or Hamlet are Shakespearean Tragedies. Because along with it being nice to be nice, it's nice to think the best of people.

My line is drawn where something finished tonight, or last week, or even in the last month. It's fresh in your mind, therefore it must occur to you that it's a spoiler, therefore you are a prick not to cut it.

This comment was just a pointless reiteration, wasn't it? Oh well.

To add something new, I think it's very interesting that the tradition used to be, before going to see a play, opera or musical, and particularly if it was a famous one, the convention was to familiarise yourself with the plot before you went so that you were able to appreciate the artistry of the performance without having to struggle to follow the plot. I still expect to see (and will read if I don't know) a plot synopsis in programmes at the theatre for opera or musicals - and for historical plays/films I certainly read up on the history before I go to see them.

I'm sure people have already said before (as it always comes up) that your enjoyment of a really good film/whatever shouldn't be decreased materially by knowing the end. I don't know that that's true. Perhaps what we should say is that modern entertainment now depends on its 'twist' so heavily that it has become a part of the media in a way that, in the past, it never was. I don't know whether that's a shame or not.

a bit over-sensitive

This is, by the way, one of the things that's getting to me a bit. I don't believe people can be "too sensitive". People may be more or less sensitive than each other, but I don't believe that any particular level of sensitivity is "right".

(Not having a go at you specifically, you're just the fourth person to say it today)

I think that's probably a separate matter. I also think people who, I dunno, cry at TV adverts are over-sensitive - and I'm one of them. Or people who cry when bugs are killed, but see my post about the bee the other day.

I liked that post - I tend to do much the same thing, I hate killing things if I can avoid it. I even rescue spiders and they terrify me!

And I don't think that's over-sensitive. "Over" implies some level that's right, and I can't see how you'd set a baseline.

I was trying to avoid saying "egocentric". It's not all about you.

My emotions aren't about me?

What?

Pulling a quote from a while back:

However, your views on what constitutes a spoiler are such that I think you're being overly sensitive.

Your emotional reaction to being told the ending of a film is most definitely about you.

Your expectation that people should necessarily change their behaviour to avoid upsetting you, regardless of other concerns, would seem to be the epitome of egocentricity.

Your expectation that people should necessarily change their behaviour to avoid upsetting you, regardless of other concerns, would seem to be the epitome of egocentricity.

But I don't think that. I don't remember saying that either. I've said repeatedly, in both posts, that that choice is down to the individual.

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

nmg.livejournal.com - 2009-07-16 11:58 (UTC) - Expand

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

wildeabandon.livejournal.com - 2009-07-16 12:03 (UTC) - Expand

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

andrewducker - 2009-07-16 12:04 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

simont - 2009-07-16 14:02 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

andrewducker - 2009-07-16 14:05 (UTC) - Expand

I think that if you're sufficiently sensitive that you are frequently upset by people doing things that you can't reasonably expect them not to do then you're over-sensitive. That's not a criticism, it's just that getting upset frequently is bad.

I also think that many people who get upset by things that they can't reasonably expect people not to do nonetheless expect people not to do them, or encourage them to feel guilty if they do*, and that is what people are usually referring to when they call someone over-sensitive as a criticism.

As a more general response to your post, it is sometimes possible to change how much something upsets you, and pointing this out is not the same as saying that it doesn't upset you now.

*I'm not saying that you're doing that, talking in generalities here.

I think that if you're sufficiently sensitive that you are frequently upset by people doing things that you can't reasonably expect them not to do then you're over-sensitive.

For some definition of "reasonable".

I agree entirely with your second paragraph.

it is sometimes possible to change how much something upsets you

In which case advice on how to do this would seem to be the answer.

For some definition of "reasonable".
Right, and obviously that's dependent on the people involved and the context and so on, but it's not entirely subjective in the way that an emotional response is.

In which case advice on how to do this would seem to be the answer.
Agreed. I mean, people were doing that, but it would be better if they did it from a "you might find it less of a problem if you looked at it this way" than a "your way of doing it is mechanistic and inferior, mine is way better".

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

andrewducker - 2009-07-16 11:55 (UTC) - Expand

"I don't believe people can be "too sensitive"."

People can be too anything. If people can be so sensitive so that it impairs their day to day living I would say that is too much. Off course you'd probably need a hell of a long tail to find such a person put there you go...

To risk, unintended but I feel it could be interpreted as such so please excuse me if I've gone and been a product of white male middle class priviledge again, misogyny: Clearly to an extent we do belive some people can be "too sensitive" - I'd say that narratives of HRT for menopausal women include bits about emotional stability. Obviously the argument here is that increased sensitivity (at the extreme) leads to emotional instability.

If people can be so sensitive so that it impairs their day to day living I would say that is too much.

Depends on how much it impairs it. I mean, my day would be better if I wasn't sensitive to idiots saying stupid things, but it's not such a massive impairment that I fancy seeking help with it :->

Similarly, emotional stability is a personal matter too. Everyone is a bit unstable, or we wouldnt have emotion reactions at all. What level of instability we're happy with is for us to decide.

I think that choices about sensitivity levels are personal - there's no _global_ bar for sensitivity, there's what individuals are comfortable with.

You can pretty much take that when I say "impairs day to day living" (or functioning) I mean in a pretty serious regard. As in this person is unable to do things that the majority of society take for granted most days.

Good point re: opera, etc. About a decade ago, I saw the NBT's production of The Brontes (biographical ballet about the Bronte sisters and brother), and I rather wished that I'd had i) a potted biography and ii) potted plot synopses of their works before I saw it (I hadn't read any of their books) because I found it very hard to follow the narrative.

So yes, I agree that there are narrative forms where intentional plot spoilers are not only considered to be the norm, but also advantageous.

And yes, my line is drawn in pretty much the same place as yours. For much older stuff, I take more of a hard line (which may or may not make me a bad man).

"I would still cut (most) stuff on my LJ because I'm happy to go to a small amount of trouble for the convenience of my friends."

+1

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only | Expand All