Egged on by the recent (omnipresent) coverage of the famous “documentary” on sociopaths made by Shane Dawson – so famous it ended up on BBC – I set out to write a post about fake empaths – perhaps most who would like a certificate for this self-awarded title.

“Most” is meant to include a margin of error – surely there are genuinely nice and sensitive people who take on this label innocuously, without realising its artificiality.

Nowadays, this term is a substitute for “good person”. If anyone walked up to you and straight up told you they were a good person, before you even got to know them, you’d probably raise an eyebrow.

Informing people you are an empath is implying you could never be insensitive to them, or to anyone else, because you are, by your very nature, always considerate of other people’s feelings; always caring and nurturing. Since humans are inherently flawed, it’s an impossible ideal and therefore a false claim. It’s very reminiscent of the “angelic Christian” without a bad bone in his/her body.

Here are a few reasons why this label makes no sense at all.

  1. Empaths define themselves in opposition to/ in comparison with others, based on a subjective assessment

Empaths, or the “most feeling of all”, claim to be the polar opposites of those they deem “unfeeling”, as well as superior to “emotional normies”, for lack of a better term. It’s basically saying they feel more by comparison.

Forget the fact that no one introduces themselves in contrast to other people.  “Hi, I’m Stan and I’m not a paedophile”. Why feel the need to announce that? It’s not like people would simply assume you’re a sociopath unless you straight out tell them you’re extremely empathetic.

The only way to know someone is an empath is if they announce it; if they take it on as a badge. And many do so publicly, on social media. A bit like vegans (a bit more). It’s a way of saying you’re better than most people at relating to others.

2. A truly empathetic person would hardly ever demonise others

Empaths who are active online are very quick to portray others as narcissists, sociopaths or psychopaths, at times based on very little. That should be disqualifying, so to speak.

Not to say that anyone who is diagnosed with the above-mentioned disorders is necessarily worthy of the stigma of callousness and manipulative behaviour. To begin with, even when someone is diagnosed, the diagnosis would need to be correct, and since humans are flawed, I imagine it’s not always the case. Of course psychiatrists are far more knowledgeable than armchair label-placers, but at the end of the day, scores of kids do get diagnosed with ADHD in order to be put on medication. The only way to know whether someone is truly exploitative and dangerous, in conjunction with such a diagnosis, is through their actions – and to be deemed avoidable or irredeemable those actions would need to be very serious.

That said, what better proof of being highly empathetic would there be than attempting to understand  — and showing compassion for – people with difficult trajectories in life?

There are former neo-Nazis who are decent people. And a fair few describe how they changed  when being shown compassion by others, who did not give up on them. Yes, there are monsters out there as well, but the number is so small that they are an exception.

Reportedly, Gandhi empathised with the man who shot him and told him to run in order to avoid being caught. Whether that’s true or not, that would be the epitome of empathy right there (aside from the fabricated tale of Jesus Christ).

Certainly, rushing to brand people as irredeemable at the slightest sign of unpleasantness is not the trait of a compassionate person.

3. Everyone clashes in terms of principles and ideas, therefore not relating to the feelings of others

If you consider yourself an empath but in real life you’re like everyone else – and face it, you are – you routinely disagree with other people’s strongly held views. Those views may well be crucial to them and a core part of their personality, at least for a while (most people change theirs overtime, as they mature and learn more).

They may feel elation at a certain thought; they might also feel distraught at another, in ways you can’t possibly understand and contradict your worldview. Let’s take the abortion debate for instance; it’s extremely polarising.

Many issues are polarising in fact, and you’ll often find yourself on one side or another. What do you do then, as an empath? Do you try to understand the other side, or do you outright demonise people who don’t agree with you?

When it comes to the far left (where many self-identifying empaths and sociopathy detectives find themselves), things are rather clear.

4. In conflicts, sometimes you have to choose who to empathise with

Let’s say you witness someone being shouted at for screwing up on the job and causing a real inconvenience, despite causing no actual harm. You can probably empathise on some level with the person being inconvenienced, but on the other hand, the person screwing up didn’t mean it and is being torn down. So you might take the side of the underdog and dismiss or ignore the (otherwise justified) feelings of the person being inconvenienced as trivial – and that’s only natural.

Sometimes you have to do that and appear unsympathetic to some in order to stick up for others. It doesn’t mean the feelings of those you dismiss are nonexistent or unimportant; they are important to them and anyone else concerned.

5. No one is 100% emotionally available 100% of the time

Let’s say you’re in the middle of a very difficult situation and someone around you freaks out about a trivial issue. They may well be sincere about it, but will you – and realistically, can you – put your time and energy into dealing with it?

We’ve all been there. While on a good or average day you might try to be accommodating and help with the stupidest shit imaginable, because you know it’s important to someone, at times you just can’t find the mental resources. And that doesn’t make you an uncaring person. It just makes you human.

6. Chances are self-proclaimed empaths refuse to own up to their mistakes

Claiming to be an empath brings forth the assumption of a lifelong quality you possess and hence seeks to make others think you’d be incapable of being a dick – and obviously, everyone is at some point, either due to immaturity or a million other variables.

Fair enough, if someone takes on the label at a young age, they haven’t had a chance to make many mistakes of this sort. If they’re an adult, however, they’re talking bullshit.

That’s because no one is perfect and no one relates perfectly to others 100% of the time. To think that you’ve always had the right approach in any conflict and only others were wrong is highly unlikely.

Wisdom is something we gain overtime, and most of us still fuck up on occasion, for a variety of reasons.

 

In addition, here’s a disappointing display of those who take this title. I came across this video, and in spite of the format, it proved very accurate in its description of these phoney types, as opposed to those who naturally connect and empathise with others, without claiming a badge. It’s also humorous in describing how fake types see the world and class others as sociopaths or narcissists for the slightest trifle.

Later edit: the article used was written by Matthew Currie, can be found here and is brilliant.

Pop Psychology boils down to two simple elements: know what’s hot of late in self-help groups on Facebook, and delivering your lines with a straight face. Here are the terms you need to know:

Empath:  One who has a high degree of sensitivity and caring to the feelings of others, to the point it can become a problem. If your client is occasionally saddened by ads about abandoned animals or starving children, it’s because they have a unique and wonderful super power. Please note that one of the most common signs that your client is an empath is that he/she is highly responsive to flattery.

Sociopath: Anyone who hurts an empath’s feelings, especially within the context of a romantic relationship. Examples include someone who forgets an anniversary, leaves the toilet seat in the wrong position, forgets to pick something up from the store, or has to be told to pick something up from the store.

Psychopath: Anyone who hurts an empath’s feelings, especially within the context of the breakup of a romantic relationship. Symptoms include having different tastes in movies or TV or music than an empath does, or forgetting to pick something up from the store twice in a row.

Caring and Concerned: What empaths are when they express negative feelings.

Rageaholic: What sociopaths or psychopaths are when they express their negative feelings to an empath.

Gaslighting: An evil form of mind control used by sociopaths or psychopaths to trick an empath into believing something is not true or incorrect. Examples include “You put spyware on my computer? Are you crazy?” or “No, I don’t have to agree with your mother about everything — that would be nuts!”

Indigo Child: The offspring of an empath. An evolved soul who expresses him/herself freely and does not like being disciplined.

Demon Child: The offspring of a sociopath or psychopath. May occasionally require discipline. Inherently inferior to an Indigo Child in every way.

Soulmate: That person you’ve been on three really good dates with.

Twin Flame: That same person after you’ve been in a good relationship for three months.

Satan Incarnate: That same person after you’ve lived with him/her for six months.

 

The comment section is a sad but useful demonstration of the points made in the video.

Here are my observations – keep in mind that those watching likely considered themselves empaths and knowledgeable regarding this personality type.

  • Roughly 90% of them didn’t get the fact that the first part, describing the world through the eyes of fake empaths, was satirical. Anyone can make a rushed judgement if they don’t actually listen – but as empaths, that’s what they presumably do best – listen, and actually get to the core of the matter, without the knee-jerk reactions “emotional commoners” have for lack of attention. Except they don’t.
  • Some displayed black and white thinking, holding the notion of empath in opposition to the notion of narcissist, which shows an overall lack of depth. Hence for them the world is comprised of empaths and narcissists/sociopaths.
  • Some were outraged that certain terms commonly used by the… empath community (?) were being wrongfully defined in the satirical bit, and instead of reflecting for a second and realising those definitions could not have been in earnest, they rushed to pour out their knowledge as to the true meanings. A bit like Bible thumpers who miss the point because they are outraged someone misplaced a verse from Leviticus in Deuteronomy. There is a “lingo” to being an empath, apparently.

First and foremost, the vast majority could not relate to the points being made – that putting oneself on a pedestal while quickly holding others in contempt, or even demonising them, negates that claim of surreal goodness in the first place.