Feeling Empathy May Be Hazardous to Your Health

Image via Pixabay

Empathy—that ability to imagine how another person feels and share an emotional experience along with them—is praised as an ideal of human behavior. After all, one of the alleged hallmarks of a true psychopath is that they can’t feel empathy or don’t come by it naturally. Without empathy, how can we understand what the marginalized and the suffering go through? Social scientists believe that empathy originates, evolutionarily, as a series of “prosocial” behaviors, essential glue that helps humans stick together for increased survival.

Yet, more recently, psychologists and neuroscientists alike have begun to take a radically different stance on the empathy-is-good line of thinking. In fact, over-empathizing might be making us emotionally burned out and unwell, leading to such states as “compassion fatigue,” or “secondary trauma,” which affects first responders and caregivers at higher rates. In these states, a person can begin to feel numb, depressed, anxious, or even inexplicably angry.

However, it isn’t only those who rescue and help others on a regular basis that are sensitive to “catching” the pain of empathy. The truth is, we all are. You’ve felt it when reading a news story circulating on social media about a war-torn country, or kids living in poverty, or the victims of a natural disaster come across your feed. At first you feel sad, then depressed, and then, you may have the urge to turn it off, look away—because it hurts to empathize.

In 2004, social neuroscientist Tania Singer was the first person to put a subject into an fMRI machine and look at what empathy did to the brain. Sixteen romantic couples took turns receiving mild electric shocks to elicit a pain reaction in the brain. First they measured what happened when the volunteer received a shock, and then they measured what happened to their romantic partner when they heard their partner receive a shock. While the shock itself naturally lit up the pain centers of the person receiving the shock’s brain, hearing a romantic partner receive a shock lit up a different kind of pain center—known as “afferent pain” or emotional pain, part of the “empathy for pain network.” In other words, empathy hurts.

Singer’s work also found that empathizing with the physical or emotional pain or stress of strangers can also elicit distress in an onlooker. Emma Young writes for New Scientist, “That is backed up by experiments in which, for example, people who watched a 15-minute TV newscast reported increased anxiety afterwards, with their anxiety only decreasing after an extended relaxation exercise.”

Over-empathizing can lead to all kinds of negative emotional outcomes. “People who experience more empathic distress in their daily lives are more likely to become aggressive when provoked even towards an innocent person,” said Olga Klimecki, University of Geneva in Switzerland.

And, in fact, no one may truly be immune to empathy, not even those allegedly unfeeling psychopaths. In 2014, Christian Keysers, a neuroscientist at the Netherlands Institute for Neuroscience in Amsterdam, studied the brains of psychopaths in relationship to empathy. When they first showed psychopaths images with no instruction on how to feel, the volunteers’ brains did not show much activity in the brain areas connected with empathy.

However, Keysers then asked these volunteers to consciously empathize with images they saw and the results were significantly dramatic—their brain responses were identical to those of the normally feeling, empathy-enabled control group’s. Young wrote, “In other words, even if your default empathy state is ‘off,’ you can turn it on when desired.”  That was an eye-opener says Keysers: it seemed clear that a spectrum of empathy could exist in all individuals.

Since her 2004 study, Singer has begun to study the difference between empathy and compassion. She built upon earlier research by Richard Davidson, a professor of psychology and psychiatry at the University of Wisconsin, Madison where Buddhist monks were put in an fMRI machine and exposed to sounds such as women screaming in pain. The monks, who, through meditation, have been shown to have the ability to manipulate their neural empathy circuitry, were told to practice a mental “loving kindness meditation” thought to elicit compassion. When they did this, it suppressed that empathy for pain network.

Singer took this research a step further and asked another monk, Matthieu Ricard, formerly a molecular biologist, to empathize with the women’s suffering instead of practicing the compassion meditation. His empathy for pain network went gangbusters, and he asked her to stop the experiment almost as soon as it began, calling the sensation “unbearable.”

Ricard said, “Compassion is feeling for and not with the other.”

Singer finds the distinction very important. “…These studies have also shown that it is crucial to distinguish between empathy, which is in itself not necessarily a good thing, and compassion,” Singer said in an interview with the Cognitive Neuroscience Society. “When I empathize with the suffering of others, I feel the pain of others; I am suffering myself. This can become so intense that it produces empathic distress in me and in the long run could lead to burnout and withdrawal. In contrast, if we feel compassion for someone else’s suffering, we do not necessarily feel with their pain but we feel concern – a feeling of love and warmth – and we can develop a strong motivation to help the other.”

There are other unexpected downsides to empathy: Michael Poulin, an associate professor of psychology at the State University of New York at Buffalo published research last year suggesting that empathy can also lead to aggression, particularly when a person witnesses someone they care about being mistreated. “Experiencing a suffering person’s distress as if it were your own is highly aversive and unpleasant,” he said.

Perhaps the most vociferous critic of empathy is Yale psychologist Paul Bloom, who wrote a book titled Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion. He feels that by empathizing with one person or group, we actually limit our ability to make rational or fair decisions for the greater good.

In his book, he gives an example of a University of Kansas study from 1995. Study lead, psychologist C. Daniel Batson, told participants about a charity called the Quality Life Foundation, whose main aim was to improve the quality of life for terminally ill kids. They were told they would hear an interview with a child applicant. (Yes, the charity and the terminally ill child were both fake).

They created two study conditions. “Low-empathy” and “high-empathy.” For the high-empathy condition, participants were asked to really imagine what the child had been through, to identify with the child’s feelings and experiences to get the full impact. In the low-empathy condition, they were guided in the opposite direction: to not be drawn into feelings but stay objective and detached in order to really hear the child’s story.

After listening to the allegedly terminally ill child, “Sheri Summers,” volunteers had to make a tough decision: would they move Sheri up on the charity’s wait list, bumping out other terminally ill kids who would then have to wait longer?

“The effect was strong,” Bloom wrote in his book, “Three-quarters of the subjects in the high-empathy condition wanted to move her up, as compared to one-third in the low-empathy condition. Empathy’s effects, then, weren’t in the direction of increasing an interest in justice. Rather, they increased special concern for the target of the empathy, despite the cost to others.”

Bloom calls this process of zooming in on one person’s pain at the expense of others the “spotlight effect.” A real life example of this, he explains, is when the Make-A-Wish Foundation spent quite a few thousand dollars to help a terminally ill child play Batman for a day.  The counter argument is, that amount of money could have helped multiple children with slightly less dramatic displays of charity.

He promotes something called “rational compassion” instead. He defines compassion as “simply caring for people, wanting them to thrive.” From this standpoint, he argues that you don't have to get personally emotionally invested, and you’re more likely to keep your rational mind about you in the process.

Since beginning her studies on empathy and compassion, Singer, too, has shifted from empathy to compassion. She even created compassion trainings for people who are at greater risk of empathy burnout due to their jobs.

Compassion training redirects a person away from the “shared pain” of empathy and back toward the loving kindness meditations grounded in Eastern traditions, such as Buddhism or Hinduism. According to one study, which put the training to use, the training fostered “benevolent and friendly attitudes toward oneself and other persons…Ultimately, the goal was to develop compassion as a generalized prosocial feeling and motivation, independent of particular persons or situations.”  

One of the participants of this training, Irina Schroen, a neonatal nurse at Charité University Clinic in Berlin, Germany, was about to quit her career due to compassion fatigue. She feels that Singer’s training saved her life and her career. “My colleagues are once again happy to work with me,” she said. “They say ‘It’s incredible how relaxed you are now.

The end result of all this study may be that empathy is good in small doses, but, as Poulin said, “It’s not at all clear the world needs more empathy if that means experiencing another person’s suffering as your own. Doing that may simply double the world’s suffering.”


If you think Fox News is the most loyal network to President Donald Trump, you likely haven't heard of One America News Network, or OAN.

The unabashedly pro-Trump network—largely considered a far-Right fringe outlet—has enjoyed expanded viewership over recent years thanks to glowing reviews from the President.

It's even been added to the prestigious White House press pool.

People were reminded of the network's bizarre Trump-era ascension during Monday's White House press briefing regarding the pandemic that—at the time of this writing—has resulted in over 3,000 deaths across the United States.

OAN's White House correspondent Chanel Rion compared the growing number of deaths from the pandemic to abortion procedures, asking Trump if abortions should be suspended all together.

The question flummoxed Trump himself.

Watch below.

Rion said:

"2,405 Americans have died from [the virus] in the last 60 days. Meanwhile, you have 2,369 children who are killed by their mothers through elective abortions each day. That's 16 and a half thousand children killed every week. Two states have suspended elective abortion to make more resources available...Should more states be doing the same?"

Even Trump seemed confused by the question, and notably didn't wade into the abortion aspect of the question:

"I think what we're doing, we're trying to, as a group ,governors—and that's Republicans and Democrats—we're just working together to solve this problem. What you're mentioning has been going on for a long time and it's a sad event, a lot of sad events in this country. But what we're doing now is working on the virus...and I think we're doing a great job—as good a job as you can possibly do."

People noticed that even Trump—either purposely or otherwise—didn't take the bait from one of his favorite networks.

Rion, who is Asian-American, previously made headlines when she asked Trump—who'd been criticized for describing the virus as "Chinese Virus"—if the phrase "Chinese food" was racist.

Her questions, while satiating viewers who prioritize "owning the libs" over potentially lifesaving information, have only confirmed the degradation of the press corps under the Trump era.

OAN's only redeemable quality? It doesn't claim to be "fair and balanced."

Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images // Duffy-Marie Arnoult/WireImage

Even in the face of a global pandemic, President Donald Trump hasn't dispensed with his typical pettiness.

The President made that perfectly clear on Sunday afternoon, as deaths caused by the national health crisis continued to increase.

Keep reading... Show less
JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images // Hernando County Sheriff

After weeks of dismissing the current pandemic as little more than a flu overblown by the media to undermine his presidency, President Donald Trump and his administration are finally beginning to acknowledge the severity of the threat posed by the virus that's upended daily life in the United States.

Pastor Rodney Howard-Browne apparently hadn't gotten that memo.

Keep reading... Show less
Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

President Donald Trump held his pandemic press briefing in the Rose Garden on Sunday—but his mood was far from rosy.

One particularly heated exchange came when he took a question from PBS NewsHour's White House Correspondent Yamiche Alcindor.

Alcindor asked Trump about the the skepticism he expressed that New York—the epicenter of the health crisis facing the United States—was exaggerating the number of lifesaving ventilators it needs to help curb the virus.

Trump interrupted Alcindor, claiming he "didn't say" that, then proceeded to berate her for her so-called "threatening" question.

Watch below.

Alcindor asked:

"You've said repeatedly that you think that some of the equipment governors are requesting, they don't actually need. You said New York might not need 30 thousand—"

Trump interrupted:

"I didn't say that. I didn't say that. Why don't you people...why don't you act in a little more positive? It's always trying to get me. Getcha, getcha. You know what, that's why nobody trusts the media anymore."

Though the President didn't reciprocate, Alcindor remained professional and repeated her question despite the President's attacks on her journalistic integrity in front of her colleagues.

What's more, Alcindor was right—and video proves it.

Alcindor referred to statements Trump made on far-right Fox News host Sean Hannity's show.

Watch below.

Trump said:

"I have a feeling that a lot of the numbers that are being said in some areas are just bigger than they're going to be. I don't believe you need 40 thousand or 30 thousand ventilators. You go into major hospitals sometimes, they'll have two ventilators and now all of a sudden they're saying, 'can we have 30 thousand ventilators?'"

Democratic New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has made clear that New York has yet to reach the height of the pandemic. The current number of ventilators is not enough to treat all of the infections to come, which could force doctors into rationing them and choosing not to treat patients with less optimistic prognoses.

Alcindor later pointed out that Trump did, in fact, express skepticism that New York was asking for ventilators they didn't need.

People called Trump out for responding to his own words with petty attacks.

They praised Alcindor for holding him accountable when so many others won't.

This was far from the first time Trump personally attacked Alcindor for doing her job.

Astonishingly, Trump denied his own words again in the same press conference when CNN reporter Jeremy Diamond asked Trump to elaborate on his Friday statements that governors aren't being "appreciative" enough of him and his administration.

If a President isn't beholden to congressional oversight, basic transparency, and even his own words, how can he be beholden to the American people?

For more stories of Trump's ineptitude from people who were there, check out A Very Stable Genius, available here.

Fox News

As the apex of the current pandemic looms in the United States, more and more Americans have begun working from home in an effort to slow the virus.

Television hosts aren't an exception to this—including far-Right Fox News host Judge Jeanine Pirro, whose performance on air this past Saturday night seemed a bit...off.

Keep reading... Show less
Drew Angerer/Getty Images

The health crisis in the United States continues to worsen in the face of the global pandemic, passing the 100,000 mark of confirmed virus cases—just days after earning the grim distinction of having more cases than any other country in the world.

Due to a dire shortage of lifesaving medical equipment, governors across the country are imploring the federal government to invoke its powers to compel private companies to manufacture more equipment and oversee distribution of what's already available.

Keep reading... Show less