Unpopular Opinion #2

Original Threads post

Just because you are an emotional person doesn’t mean you are empathetic.

There is a difference between shedding a tear for someone else’s loss and shedding a tear because that loss is your own.

Having a bit of compassion for each other won’t harm humanity, though on a personal level it might harm many individuals separately. Feeling another person’s pain and suffering, their struggle and distress, while still standing in your own shoes, is a milestone not many can say they have achieved. Not many are able to confirm they have truly experienced it. Unfortunately, understanding the problems of another person does not automatically translate into solving them. Many people need a shoulder to lean on while they take their time to process their emotions: a moment to let all the tears spill forward and indulge in a deceptive, temporary respite. Yet afterwards, when all the processing and pitying are done, the task at hand, thrown at you with no warning and no guidebook, demands its own resolution.

Having the ability to express your emotions openly won’t make a wider group of people comfortable, though on an individual level it might heal many people one by one. To be vulnerable instead of stoic, to feel things instead of allowing them to simply pass through you, is a state not many are willing to admit they never chose. Not many would describe it as an enviable position to be in. Sadly, not choosing something to happen to you is seldom equivalent to that thing actually avoiding your life. Many people need their words to be heard: not overheard, not underheard, but truly heard. Even listened to, if possible.

Just because you are an emotional person doesn’t mean you are empathetic.

True, both can be mutually exclusive. Both can also exist together. It is plausible that Person A is both emotional and empathetic; it is also possible that Person B is neither empathetic nor emotional.

The emotional part of this equation is what appears on the external surface. Empathy, on the other hand, is what remains locked inside. It is fascinating how some people expect empathetic individuals to be expressive, and when they are not, they are perceived as lacking compassion or as being too cold and ruthless.

Person A might walk past someone in need, perhaps a mother struggling to reach a stroller that has rolled farther down the road with her baby still inside, or perhaps a schoolboy being bullied outside the schoolyard as others attempt to force open his backpack or lunchbox, and immediately rush forward to help. They might intervene in the situation, becoming the apparent saviour, surrounding both the mother and the schoolboy with care while offering further assistance.

On the other hand, Person B might never approach those people in need. They might never reduce the physical distance between them, yet still end up wounded deeply in heart and soul by what they have witnessed. What is even more fascinating is that it is impossible to predict whether Person A will remain the same, and whether Person B will remain the same.

Life may happen. Tides may change. Chapters may transition. And years later, should the same circumstances repeat themselves, it is possible that Person A will no longer approach the person in need, while Person B will act before they are even capable of thinking through the situation or fully understanding what they are feeling.

There is a difference between shedding a tear for someone else’s loss and shedding a tear because that loss is your own.

On the surface, it is a very clear and clean thesis. But if we go deeper, another question begins to emerge:

“What if a person who always sheds tears for others eventually finds themselves in a situation where no one will shed even a tear for them?”

“What if the one who is always the first to care about the pain and suffering of others, again and again, becomes overwhelmed by the indifference of the entire world?”

“Then how long will their empathy directed toward everyone but themselves continue to survive?”

I do not believe that a person can simply age into someone who outgrows empathy and stops feeling it altogether, especially if they once felt it deeply and sincerely. However, I do believe that some people grow into individuals whose way of expressing empathy undergoes an extreme and profound transformation. Empathy does not fade; it changes its form of expression. That is the belief I hold closely.

When no one notices a person's struggle and hardship, they might eventually choose the solution of becoming impenetrable, like a wall; stoic, like a soldier; moving forward like a river, in whose path even a rock will eventually be forced to surrender and form a passage for the water to pass through. And when that facade builds itself over years, expecting their empathy to remain openly expressive can almost become an insult.

But now we seem to have returned to our earlier statement. Having a bit of compassion for each other won’t harm humanity, though on a personal level it might harm many individuals separately.

But what if it is the opposite? What if it is actually:

Having a bit of compassion for each other will harm humanity, though on a personal level it might heal many individuals separately.

It is because we expect empathetic people to be capable of showing, no, rather proving, their empathy through visible actions that those who operate through their protective, unflinching exterior armor are labelled as cold. And it is because many of those cold empaths reached this state because of something. They truly could have healed on a much more personal level if only they had lowered their shields.

And once again, we arrive at the initial statement. Having the ability to express your emotions openly won’t make a wider group of people comfortable, though on an individual level it might heal many people one by one.

But what if it is the opposite? What if it is actually:

Having the ability to express your emotions openly will make a wider group of people comfortable, though on an individual level it might hurt many people one by one.

When a person is expressive, it becomes easier for a larger group of people to categorize that individual into an already labelled group. From there comes a sense of comfort. Yet that particular person is always in danger of either being used or checkmated because of the very open vulnerability that, in itself, does not mean they need healing.

At the end, perhaps it is not about:

Emotional person ≠ empathetic person,

but rather:

Empathetic person ≠ emotional person.

Comments