Doo-Doo's And Empathy

In working through one of the NVC chapters on empathy, there is a list of "doo-doo's" or common conversational strategies that people often employ rather than using empathy in response to another person expressing their feelings. This list includes educating, advising, story-telling, sympathizing, one-upping, consoling, interrogating, explaining and correcting. They are called "doo-doo's" because they are tactics which involving DOING something in response to someone else's feelings, rather than using empathy, which is more a technique of just BEING there, totally present, to hear the experience of another.

Over the past several months as I have been studying NVC, I have become more and more aware of my conversational habits and have started to question whether or not those habits are actually in line with my values. Even prior to reading this list, I had become somewhat uncomfortable with some of my conversations, feeling that there are situations that feel "scripted" for lack of a better term. It seems that there are times when I just know what I am "supposed" to say in response to someone else's feelings, and that I am responding more out of habit and expectation than out of authenticity and honesty.

One exercise that we did for this chapter involved questioning what "doo-doo's" we most commonly used and to bring some of those conversations to mind. It was very easy for me to identify my doo-doo's.... here is what I wrote in response to the question:

"Educating, advising and story-telling are the three big ones for me. I often combine them into one conversational technique, i.e. I tell a story of my own experience that has elements of educating and advising in it, but because it is about *me* it is not intended to change or alter the other person's behavior -- it is just the story of what I have done or seen in a similar situation. I do this because my experience is the only one of which I can speak -- though it relates to their experience and may be similar, I cannot speak directly about their experience because it is not mine to speak of. This seems to be helpful to people, though I try to be cognizant to fully empathize with them and show my understanding of them first.

"The 'trap' that I often find myself falling into is saying what I know that they expect / want me to say. For instance, giving sympathy if that seems to be what they want. I am trying to consciously avoid this because I do not think that a lot of our culturally conditioned and scripted conversations are as healthy or beneficial as they could be. Though the person might expect or desire advice or sympathy, perhaps what they actually *need* is empathy.

"I am much better about consciously choosing empathy in written conversation or in person. However, on the telephone especially I easily fall into what I perceive as expected or desired of me. I am painfully aware of this, even as I hear myself do it."

This proclivity in me has been driving me crazy for some time now, and especially now that I have a more effective tool (empathy) I have tried and tried to change it. There are some things in conversation that I know are expected of me that I am not willing to do, that I actually have success in having boundaries about. One is giving direct advice, i.e. saying what I think the other person "should" do -- I flat out refuse to do that when I am asked because I have no idea what someone else should or should not do and am not comfortable pretending otherwise.

The other is offering an opinion, saying in a situation (for instance) who I think is "right" and "wrong," or if I think that the person is making the right decision. Generally, I don't even form opinions about other people and what they are doing, thus I am not "withholding" my opinion -- I genuinely don't have one, nor am I willing to form one if asked.

But some other things.... well, I just sort of fall into it, knowing that I am expected to sympathize, console, etc.. And I'm not saying that there is anything "wrong" with doing these things, but rather that I would like to feel that I have more of a choice in it, that I am more in control of what comes out of my mouth, rather than just falling into a socially conditioned script.

So, my current assignment is to offer empathy when someone calls me and expresses their feelings. Just empathy. Nothing else. If it seems that some other information might be helpful to them, I will offer it only after explicitly asking them if they would find it of benefit. This way, I am being true to myself and exercising choice in what I say AND I may be more able to meet their needs anyway, in that I will ask them if they would like to hear my experience rather than just assuming that they do.

Sometimes it seems that what people want (or think that they want) is not always what they need, or what might actually be healthiest. I no longer have the knee-jerk reaction to validate how people feel / behave, or to agree that they are "right" or are "doing the right thing." There are times that I know that this is expected of me, but I would be being unauthentic to say or do those things and will refuse, even when directly asked. However, I still fall into some of the socially scripted conversations, and I am no longer comfortable with that.

I am happy to say that my first opportunity to try out this new commitment to more carefully and fully choose my words went very well. Though I felt compelled and driven to console, sympathize, offer encouragement, etc., I just stuck with my decision and offered nothing by empathy, reflecting back to the person what I heard them expressing about how they felt. I was relieved that this did not seem to bother, offend or disappoint them. In fact, I seriously doubt that they noticed I was doing anything different than usual.

Which was another interesting discovery. For as much as I have felt pushed (not by any individual person, but by my cultural conditioning) to use these conversational "doo-doo's," not doing them didn't seem to matter much at all to the other person. Frankly, I had the idea that my response mattered very little -- perhaps the point is to just listen, that the real desire of the other person is just to express their feelings, and as long as they have the space to do that, perhaps they care very little for what the other person's response actually is. Maybe if they feel that their words and feelings are heard, allowed and supported then the actual feedback is irrelevant.

I am committed to continue to do this, offering only empathy in response to other people's feelings, unless I explicitly verbally ask if they would like something else. And maybe that's part of it too -- maybe it is important to me that not only am I choosing my words, but that they are consciously choosing to request particular things rather than just silently hope / wish / expect those things. All around, full disclosure and authenticity within conversation just seems more honest and healthy to me, even if it is somewhat uncomfortable at first.

That's the thing about conditioning -- it is so "under the radar," so silent and insidious, that to go against it feels.... just.... scary, for no apparent reason. In the name of authenticity, however, I am willing to deal with the discomfort. Frankly, the discomfort of inauthenticity has become greater than the discomfort of going against convention. I am curious to see the reactions to this... positive? negative? non-existent? The giraffe with the clipboard will let you know how it all turns out.....