DEPTHS UNKNOWN: WHY EMPATHY CANNOT BE MEASURED.

In his seminal work Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, science fiction guru Philip K. Dick posits a hypothetical test for discerning human beings from robots, testing the empathy of individuals by a questionnaire called the Voigt-Kampf test. Fortunately, Dick managed to sway the emotions of his more sensitive readers with such vivid, cutting imagery as a tortoise on its own back and equally incisive philosophical questions about moral decisions in human relationships. Unfortunately, his genius never made it into medical practice, because psychology is so pathetically rare a skill.

I am referring, of course, to the notorious Empathy Quotient test by Simon Baron-Cohen.

The effect of the scientific method in application to empathy is that it gives the androids (sociopaths and narcissists) in society another layer of protection under the guise of a mask. The work is reductionistic, creating a sort of game of zero sum between the affect and the intellect, which is precisely the sort of schizophrenic split that empathy is intended to bridge. To top it off, it has NOTHING TO DO WITH EMPATHY. It defines “empathy” as simply the antithesis of an other mysterious phenomenon called “autism”, and in place of a synthesis, explaining rationally the one in terms of the other, and with all due respect paid to both, it simply treats “autistic” behaviours as though they were “not empathic ENOUGH” and had to be DISMISSED AS A DISORDER.

This is at the root of its hypocrisy: that though it creates a relativistic framework within which character is measured NOT by fortitude but by fluidity and malleability, it is UNYIELDING and ABSOLUTISTIC in its treatment of people who are “not empathic enough”.

Now: on an individual level it is sensible to dismiss sociopaths and even to exclude them from society, in the spirit of protecting not only highly sensitive individuals but all so those of average sensitivity, who are to be nurtured by the highly sensitive types.

But this is not the job of doctors. After all: the highly sensitive individual will usually accommodate narcissists repeatedly before doing the unthinkable: acting in self-preservation. And this will only happen after the narcissist does the unthinkable as well.

The doctor cannot afford even this degree of selfishness. His life must be a constant battle against himself, an ascesis that makes him more and more tolerant and knowledgeable. He is getting paid to be the Healer, a role that highly sensitive individuals are borne into. There is no break from this role so long as he is in practice.

Some of the most empathic people that I have known have been autistic. They understand people with a transparency that renders their own affects and appetites practically non-existent. They cannot be manipulated nor swayed by group thought, so they tend to rise to a higher rung of spiritual, intellectual, and moral development as readily as air rises underwater. And this is why: because the AVERAGE PERSON IS STUPID. Time and time again psychology has demonstrated that only a FEW people actually attain mental clarity and Enlightenment. Although the state of Nirvana is available, in theory, to all beings, and any one can avail one’s self of it, nonetheless ONLY THE FEW can attain it. Only a minority reaches Kohlberg’s post-conventional level of Morality, most remaining on the adolescent level of role fulfillment. No pretentious study can remove the facts on the ground: that most people pretend towards a kindness that they do not ACTUALLY FEEL in the spirit of APPEARING to be sensitive to others because they think that it is EXPECTED of them. And this has all ways been a purely SELFISH aim that Empaths have no natural respect for, because it is essentially a form of narcissistic manipulation wherein the narcissist accrues the projections of others in the hopes of advancing a personal agenda that has nothing to do with either Reason nor the Common Good.

Post-conventional Morality is characterized not only by an exceptional degree of emotional intelligence but likewise by a new dimension of ABSTRACT, INTELLECTUAL Intelligence. As the Empath expands his frame of reference to include more and more Beings, approaching the domain of the Bodhisattva, he must take more and more variables into account intellectually. Needs must be categorized and prioritized in accordance with Universal Moral Principles that, if observed, would preserve the well-being of all beings, rather than simply that of the Empath or his close associates. One can no longer then afford to withdraw into one’s own emotions, nor even into one’s own PERCEPTIONS of OTHERS’ emotions. As yin surrenders to yang, following the natural course of the Tao, so it is that the maternal quality of receptivity must be supplemented by the paternal quality of discernment. This mythological insight was lost with the marginalization of Jung by the psychoanalytic community, beginning as early on as his break with Freud, whose remaining disciples created the bane of all Western psychology and psychotherapy: Behaviourism.

Baron-Cohen’s futile, heavy-handed attempts to measure the immeasurable were from the beginning a moral mistake, borne out of the Will to Power rather than that position of Love that Empaths inhabit. Empathy is a function of the Heart Chakra, but Behaviourism is at best Third Chakra energy, subordinating the patient to its will and preserving the largely emotive sexual habits and pathetic complacency of the first two chakras: Sacral and Root, respectively. Time and time again it has been demonstrated that most individuals are stuck on these three “animal” chakras, totally unaware of the Heart Level where Empathy begins. Baron-Cohen was apparently unaware as well, projecting his own shortcomings upon people on the “Autistic Spectrum”. How convenient for him! Instead of making his focus his own self-improvement, arriving at Empathy by an act of Grace, he turned his focus outwards towards “helping” hopeless cases to understand and to be “understood”. And by this altruistic enterprise he preserved his own identity, ACCORDING TO HIS OWN TERMS, as an Empathic (non-Autistic) Individual. Yet as Foucault pointed out: all knowledge is a function of Power. By “understanding” Autism he sought to CONTROL it; by making himself “understood” to Autists he simply asserted his own Authority over them.

This was the key danger: that like all studies this was made available to the Public. So any narcissist could pick it up, figure out how to act the part of an Empath, and condemn Autism in others. At the root of the lie was the underlying fact that narcissists feed primarily off of Empaths. By challenging the identity of the Empath and obligating the Empath to perform in accordance with certain artificial standards, he managed to create two worlds: one in which the Empath lived in harmony with his surroundings, and the other wherein the Empath lived in disharmony. The former world gave the Empath all due credit for his abilities and his feelings, recognizing them as a just and objective summary of Others. The latter world burdened the Empath with guilt that was borne out of a parasitic agenda. It marginalized the Empath even whilst it treated him as the solitary provider for the narcissist’s needs and wants. It appealed to an irrational pathos, enthroning it as “empathy”, bypassing the Logic that develops only out of TRUE empathy. This created the relationship of Master and Slave between Sociopath and Empath, all because the former now possessed the tools with which to MEASURE empathy and the latter only possessed what could be measured and interpreted one way or an other. Yet as all ways had been the case the measurement was a function of the ruler, not of the ruled. Pun intended.

Baron-Cohen’s test is easy to win. One simply has to think like a conformist. It is Behaviourism 101, and only a narcissist or someone who has been surrounded by narcissists would be savvy enough to complete it successfully. Preferring honesty, I scored forty out of eighty, just ten above the cutoff point for “Autism Spectrum”. And I rejoiced, for I had won in my work of several years: to finally balance my own needs with those of others, and my Ego with my Soul. For that is all that the test addresses: are you, or are you not, someone else’s bitch? Will you, or won’t you, surrender your masculinity for someone’s else’s agenda, only to acquire something that all ways belonged to you? Will you call a weakness of will “empathy” only because you are so easily swayed by the opinions of your fellows that you have no backbone left? And will you tolerate their exploitation despite the fact that a Better Life awaits you once you start to stand up for yourself? Will you remain a Knight of Infinite Resignation, to use Kierkegaard’s term for the pious hypocrite, or will you rise to the Religious Dimension and, having become the Knight of Pure Faith, defy your fellows in service to a Higher Cause?

In short: will you stand up for yourself, serving Humanity? Or will you remain reactive and spineless, serving only the Few, who pretend towards your own Unique Greatness and who work AGAINST Humanity?

If you employ your gift towards the former purpose, you are Autistic. So long as you defy the narcissists, this is your diagnostic fate, under Behaviourism.

Keep in mind: that though only the Few attain Enlightenment, they do not expect others to SERVE them, as the narcissist does. Yet neither should they, by the same token, be made to SERVE the narcissist. They have only to Heal the average being, and only if they so choose or are so Called (hence the Religious Imagery). And in the process they still retain an authority, not so much over the average being so much as over their own emotions and reactions. And this authority Baron-Cohen seeks to rob them of.

Everyone is on the Autism Spectrum, because Autism is simply extreme Introversion. Most people in every society are extraverted. Introversion was not even identified before Jung, who was himself an Introvert, made it obvious.

Simon Baron-Cohen’s test is blatantly majoritarian in its treatment of introverts. Each question tests the taker’s reaction to a given situation according to how ACCOMODATING that person is, rather than how CRITICAL and UNYIELDING That person is. But this is blatant complacency and conformism. It literally SCAPEGOATS people who are social critics, trying to reprogram them on a Soul Level rather than entertaining their radical positions and commending that long-lost Humanistic virtue of Fortitude and Individuality. It precludes the possibility (and ignores the Actuality) that culture is itself conducive of narcissism, and that narcissism is most easily attained and preserved in a group wherein everyone acts as an extension of everyone else. This is not empathy, because it remains INTOLERANT of any DEVIANCE from its own agenda. So there’s that.

Groupthink is nothing short of collective narcissism. It is proto-Fascism, and it is totally irrational. Imagine that, in the spirit of appearing accommodating, your best friend “allowed you” to come along with him and several others on a trip to the Beach. Now, you intended to go to the Beach any way so this was convenient. But when you got there, no one in the Group wanted to go into the water. So you took initiative, thinking to lead by example and knowing precisely what you wanted. They warned you not to, but you dismissed them, thinking that their concern for your safety was excessive. When you made it safely to the shore, you waved up at them, blissfully, happy to see them and inviting them to join you, demonstrating that you are all right. Yet upon return you find that they have mainly dispersed. Your “friends” condemn you, at length, for your act of social deviance. You explain that they did not have to wait for you, that you had neither required nor requested their attendance, and that you had not even needed the ride to begin with. Your act was totally natural, healthy, and a positive example. Besides: only a seriously impaired person would act as though the interests of the Group were a pivotal value. The entire benefit of your act would never be known to any one who had not done as you had done, because it was only by entering into the Water that you connected with the ENTIRE BIOSPHERE. Every microbe, every fish and mollusk, and each splashing child and wizened human figure moved in concert with you at that moment as you waved up at your fellows who stood looking down upon you from the cliff. You were at that moment in Nirvana, and they were too afraid to come down to your level. And who are they then to judge of your Soul? It was not as though you set an example that they could not follow. Your act was uncompetitive, innocent, and unselfish. But your “friends” condemn it, because their identity is purely tribal. They “had to wait for you”, even though you had no say in this matter. The underlying fallacy is on their own part; they did not “have to”, but they WANTED to APPEAR LOYAL.

Loyalty bought at a stolen price is cheap; if you are going to act the part of a good friend, I am the authority in this, and I will not be condemned for the situation that you put yourself into only to look good. I acted in service to a Higher Cause, a Leap of Faith that went beyond the merely conformist level and set an example that, were all beings to follow, would nurture our collective well-being. And this is incomparable to those situations which are aimed at personal gain AT THE EXPENSE of an other person. The act was totally non-competitive, its aims were selfless, and I refuse to be controlled by people who insist I inconvenienced them when I asked nothing OF them except for a ride. It was not a deliberate infliction of harm, nor was it aimed at a goal that could only benefit MOST of the people in the group. No one was outvoted, because any one could choose to participate of his or her own accord. No one was left out, save for the person who volunteered to be different. And no one was forced into seclusion. In short: social deviance is a function of empathy. By contrast, conformism all ways exploits the minority, often taking advantage of the situation that the minority created. It blatantly infringes upon the minority’s emotional needs, acting in such a way that could only be of benefit to the many AT THE EXPENSE of the few. And it never operates in ignorance or innocence of its own damage; without requiring any prodding, a guilty conscience all ways shows itself.

Simon Baron-Cohen sides invariably with the conformist. Most of his questions do not even deal with Extraverted Feeling, which is Empathy, but with Introverted Feeling. Even Introverts have Extraverted Functions, and Extraverts likewise possess Introverted ones. Baron-Cohen only asks questions that pertain to the individual’s own values, and then he weighs them against social pressures. He has no questions that would measure, as the Myers-Briggs test does, the phenomenon that is empathy: a lucid perception of others’ conditions. Besides that, he corrupts the purity of the examination by turning it into a moralizing agent: instead of the test being comprised of “IS”, it deals in “SHOULD”. It is not truly moral, posing questions as Philip K. Dick did that tested one’s character. It is simply MORALISTIC, observing conformity and calling it empathy. The presupposition seems to be that IF you are an Empath, THEN YOU MUST or THEN YOU WILL behave in this way. But very few situations are of this nature, and very few people are smart enough or dramatic enough to conceive of them, as Dick had. This is why: Feelings are facts, as Wittgenstein demonstrated. (He all so demonstrated, as aforementioned, that the measurement is a function of the ruler.) But facts cannot produce ethics. This is called the Naturalist Fallacy, a logical proof produced by Hume. The fallacy that facts can dictate ethics, instead of ETHICS dictating ethics, is precisely the sort of irrational Romanticism that produces the Fascist Philosophy of Action. We cannot simply “do” without thinking, unless we allow our actions to be subject to a greater force like Groupthink. To presume, without thinking, that the Group is right is to create the worst of all possible Human Worlds. No Empath would allow for it, save for the spineless and pathetic one who made a mistake in his own development. Such is what Hannah Arendt called the Banality of Evil.

At this point, the average reader would appreciate some sort of direct reference to the test itself. I will not insult the intelligence of others readers by doing this. Instead, I will provide a link so that you can see for yourself. Keep in mind that it is not outside the range of my ability to do a line-by-line of the entire piece, replacing the buttons in the right-hand column with a list of notes on the fallacy, logical or clinical, of each question and its implications. But this would drain my energy. Why? Not because I am insensitive. But such attention to detail and the "facts at hand" is typically extraverted, and it has less to do with Feeling than it does with Thought. I prefer the Abstract and the Universal, since both my Feelings and my Intellect rest on a higher level that the banality of commonplace emotion does not touch. Does this make me Autistic? No. Unless you mean to suggest, Reader, that my failure to understand the selfishness of others is a testament not to my own goodwill but to my lack thereof. According to that logic, it is not out of innocence that I am shocked at the behaviour of the narcissist, but rather out of SIN! How convenient that must be to the narcissists!

But I owe them nothing. For sometimes we so outgrow others that they become remote to us. One can empathize with unempathic people, but will one understand them? Will one pardon them? They will appear to us as merely dead-ends in what is otherwise an inextricable human net of mutual compassion and Good Will. Their politics will be remote rungs of hell, their motives will be akin to an alien machinery, and their values and dictates will be laughable. Consider then that it is not a lack of empathy that absolves the Individual of your influence, but an EXCESS of it that surpasses byfar your OWN understanding! Consider then that your attempts to make it an object of knowledge are tragically limited by inherent futility. And conclude that, as Jung had said: Understanding is more important than Knowledge.

DM.A.A.