Gemini Report: The Architect of Understanding: An Analysis of Imagination's Role in Cognitive Empathy
https://gemini.google.com/app/f20c20bfed1ef56f

The Affective Empathy, Cognitive Empathy,  Empathic Concern Model

Cognitive Empathy Definition

1. Understanding - 

2. Imagining - “Imagining how another is thinking and feeling or Imagining how one would think and feel in the other's place” - Dan Batson

3. Perspective Taking - “involves the ability to adopt the viewpoint of another person” - Mark Davis
   
   

Without necessarily sharing or experiencing those emotions oneself

Affective (Emotional) Empathy

1. Emotion Sharing 

   1. State Matching -  Matching others feelings

   2. Emotional Contagion - taking on others feelings

   3. Union or fusion - Losing a Sense of Self

   4. 
      

2. An Emotional Reactions (to Basic Empathy)

   1. Personal Distress - Feeling distress at witnessing another person's suffering

   2. Feeling Sympathy - feeling sorry for the person.

   3. Any Reaction - Joy, Anger, Fear, Sorrow,

   4.  Empathic Joy -
      
      

3. Empathic Concern - (Empathic Compassion, Compassion) 

   1. 
      

Introduction

The Affective Empathy, Cognitive Empathy, Empathic Concern Model is the most common model of empathy that one sees in academia and often in articles, etc. This definition of empathy divides empathy into two or three main components, depending on the framework used. The most widely accepted model distinguishes cognitive empathy, emotional (affective) empathy, and sometimes empathic concern (empathic compassion or compassion).  

Here I want to explore the model and how it relates to the Wholistic Empathy Model and how it is mapped onto the Empathy Circle practice.

The Wholistic Empathy Definitions model builds on the definition of empathy by Carl Rogers which predates many of the current models out there. Rogers was working on empathy already in the 1940s, 50s, 60s and until his death in the 1980s.  Roger's developed the active listening based therapy practice and he would actively listen to his clients.  The Empathy Circle  uses this active listening in a group of 4 to 7 participants who take turns actively listening to each other. So in the context of the Empathy Circle, Rogers would be doing the Active Listener role and and his client would be the Speaker.

General Problems with the Affective - Cognitive Empathy Model 

1. Inaccurate Dualist Mindset
   The Affective - Cognitive Model sees the world in a Dualist mindset, i.e. feeing versus reason, head versus heart, instinct versus intellect. 

   1. 1. Model sees feeling and though as separate. This model is based on Enlightenment thinking which sees reason as a supernatural force (disembodied) in the universe.. similar to god. It is not embodied. The problem with this is that we can not have thoughts that do not have a felt sense to them.  If there is feelings and reason, it is so intertwined that its hard to even separate.
         
         

      2. Carl Rogers didn't define empathy in feeling versus reason terms. When Rogers Actively Listened to his clients, he listened to them as a whole person. He did mention listening for and reflecting feelings.  Rogers, emphasized the importance of reflecting feelings as a key component of empathic or active listening. He believed that accurately reflecting a person’s feelings was essential to creating the kind of environment in which personal growth and healing could occur.  He said. “When the therapist is able to listen to the client’s feelings and accurately reflect them, the client begins to listen to himself more accurately and with greater acceptance.”  — Carl Rogers.
         
         

      3. In the The Wholistic Empathy Model and Empathy Circle this is the basic empathy, of the Active Listener listening directly and with deep presence to the Speaker as a  whole person. Your not dividing them into Cognitive or affective parts.
         
         

2. The Model is Overly Dry and  Academic. Using complicated terminology like 'affective' and 'cognitive' which the average person would find hard to understand. The model seems to have been created by theorists or cognitive phycologists who do not have the real world experience of applying empathy, like clinical phycologists do. Leave it to the academics to squeeze the life out of empathy. Cognitive empathy and affective empathy as terms are dull, dry, academic and boring.  It's not easy to understand everyday language.
   
   Sexy Wholistic Empathy. I think this model has sexier terminology, do you want dry boring academic cognitive  empathy or do you want fun, creative, imaginative empathy?
   
   

3. Inaccurate Model. The model does not accurately model the reality of empathy. Wholistic Empathy more accurately describes the actual experience of empathy, especially as experienced in the Empathy Circle and life.
   
   

4. Inconsistent Definitions. There are different definitions use for both  'affective empathy' and 'cognitive empathy'. the definitions of affective and cognitive empathy do not seem consistent.
   
   

5. Easily Misinterpreted. The model is easily misinterpreted. I find that some conncepts can be understood differently. For example the term perspective taking, is that an imaginative experience like Imaginative Empathy, or does it happen by sensing into someone's experience with Basic Empathy.
   
   

6. Model is Losing Support. I've heard academics mentioned this affective/cognitive model is losing support in the academic community and felt it would be gone in 10 years. Marco Iacaboni mentioned to me in a interview that Affective and Cognitive are two sides of the same coin.

Critique of the Affective-Cognitive Empathy Model: Towards a More Wholistic Understanding

The Affective-Cognitive (A-C) Empathy Model, while influential in categorizing components of empathic experience, faces several significant criticisms regarding its foundational assumptions, practical utility, and experiential accuracy. These critiques suggest the need for a more integrated and wholistic framework.

1. Challenging the Dualistic Foundation:

   • An Artificial Separation: A primary concern with the A-C model is its inherent dualism, which posits a fundamental separation between 'feeling' (affective empathy) and 'thought' (cognitive empathy). This framework often draws comparisons to dichotomies like "head versus heart" or "instinct versus intellect."

   • Echoes of Disembodied Reason: This separation can be seen as reflecting Enlightenment-era thinking, which sometimes conceptualized reason as a disembodied, almost transcendent faculty, distinct from somatic and emotional experience.

   • The Intertwined Nature of Experience: However, contemporary understanding in psychology and phenomenology suggests that thoughts and emotions are deeply intertwined. It is difficult, if not impossible, to experience a thought devoid of any "felt sense" or emotional coloring. Conversely, emotions often involve cognitive appraisals. Attempting to rigidly separate them may not reflect the reality of human consciousness.

   • Carl Rogers' Wholistic Approach: Notably, Carl Rogers, a pioneer in empathic understanding, did not define empathy in these strictly bifurcated terms. His concept of "Active Listening" involved engaging with the client as a "whole person." While Rogers emphasized the critical importance of identifying and reflecting feelings ("When the therapist is able to listen to the client’s feelings and accurately reflect them, the client begins to listen to himself more accurately and with greater acceptance"), this was part of a wholistic engagement rather than an isolated affective exercise. This aligns with frameworks like the proposed "Wholistic Empathy Model" and practices such as the Empathy Circle, which prioritize direct, present listening to the entirety of the speaker's experience, without artificially dividing them into parts.

2. Accessibility and Practicality Concerns:

   • Overly Academic Terminology: The terms "affective" and "cognitive" empathy, while standard in academic research, can be perceived as overly clinical, dry, and inaccessible to a broader audience. This jargon can make the concept of empathy feel removed from lived experience and less intuitive for those outside specialist fields, potentially, as some might say, "squeezing the life out of empathy."

   • Perceived Disconnect from Applied Experience: There's a critique that such models may seem to originate more from theoretical or cognitive psychology frameworks, potentially lacking the nuanced insights gained from extensive, direct clinical or applied empathic practice. While theorists and practitioners both contribute valuable perspectives, models should strive for language and concepts that resonate broadly with the general public.

3. Questions of Accuracy and Interpretive Clarity:

   • Inaccurate Reflection of Lived Empathy: Critics argue that by segmenting empathy, the A-C model may not fully or accurately capture the multifaceted, integrated reality of the empathic experience. A "Wholistic Empathy" approach, for example, is proposed as better reflecting the unified nature of empathy as it unfolds in real-world interactions and specific relational practices.

   • Inconsistent Definitions and Potential for Misinterpretation: The precise definitions of "affective empathy" and "cognitive empathy" can vary across different researchers and texts. This lack of consistent operationalization can lead to confusion, hinder clear communication, and make the model prone to misinterpretation, thereby limiting its practical utility and hampering comparative research. Some of the concepts and experiences actually contradict each other.

4. Evolving Perspectives in the Field:

   • Shifting Academic Views: There are anecdotal reports and observations suggesting that the strict A-C dichotomy is facing increased scrutiny within the academic community. Some researchers indicate that its prominence may be waning, with a move towards more integrated or nuanced perspectives. The sentiment that affective and cognitive components might be better understood as "two sides of the same coin" or deeply interconnected facets, rather than distinct and separable processes, points towards a need for models that emphasize their synergy.

Conclusion
While the Affective-Cognitive Empathy Model has offered a framework for analyzing empathic processes, its dualistic underpinnings, specialized terminology, and potential for misrepresenting the integrated nature of lived empathy warrant critical re-evaluation. A shift towards more wholistic models that emphasize the interconnectedness of human experience, use more accessible language (perhaps described as more "sexy",  "creative" or "imaginative" in its ability to capture the richness of empathy), and accurately reflect the indivisible nature of the person could offer a more robust and applicable understanding of this vital human capacity.

Using Carl Rogers Style of writing:

It has been my experience, as I've endeavored to understand the delicate process of how one person truly connects with another, that we often seek frameworks to help illuminate these complex interactions. The Affective-Cognitive Empathy Model, for instance, has certainly been a significant lens through which many have explored empathy, attempting to separate it into various components.

Yet, as I reflect on this, a question arises within me: does such a separation fully capture the unified way in which empathy seems to be experienced by persons? I find myself wondering about some of the critiques that appear to be emerging, questioning its fundamental assumptions, its direct applicability to our lived interactions, and whether it truly resonates with the deeply felt sense of empathic connection. It feels to me as though there might be a growing sense that a more integrated, perhaps a more wholistic, way of perceiving empathy could be of greater service.

One area that gives me pause is this division of our experiencing into 'affective' and 'cognitive' realms. It seems to suggest a kind of separateness within the person, perhaps an echo of earlier views where 'reason' was held apart from, and sometimes above, the flow of our 'emotions.' But as I have listened to individuals share their inner worlds, it has become increasingly clear to me that thoughts and feelings are seldom truly distinct. Can one truly have a thought that is not tinged, however subtly, with some feeling? And are not our emotions often given shape and meaning by our cognitions? To try and cleave these too sharply feels as though it might not honor the integrated way we seem to function as whole organisms.

It is interesting to recall that in my own efforts to describe what I observed in therapeutic relationships, particularly in what came to be known as 'Active Listening,' the emphasis was always on striving to grasp the total meaning of what the client was communicating – the feelings, yes, but as partof their whole present experiencing. My sense was, and continues to be, that when a therapist is able to sense the client’s private world as if it were their own, but without ever losing the 'as if' quality, and can communicate something of this understanding, then the client, too, begins to listen to themselves with greater accuracy and acceptance. This wasn't, for me, about checking off an 'affective' component; it was about endeavoring to be with the client in their wholeness. This seems to align more closely with newer explorations, such as those termed a 'Wholistic Empathy Model,' and with practices like the Empathy Circle, where the focus is so deeply on being present to the totality of a person's communication.

Another gentle question that arises concerns the language we use. When we speak of 'affective empathy' and 'cognitive empathy,' I wonder if these terms, while perhaps useful in scholarly discussion, might feel somewhat abstract or even a little distant to those not immersed in academic study. There's a part of me that wonders if such specialized language might inadvertently make empathy seem more complicated than the very human, and often intuitive, experience it is – perhaps, as some might feel, diminishing a sense of its vitality.

And then, one might also consider whether such models, sometimes appearing to stem more from theoretical considerations, fully embrace the rich, experiential wisdom that comes from many years of being with people in deeply personal ways, from truly engaging in empathic connection. It seems to me that for any understanding of empathy to be truly helpful, it needs to resonate broadly, to speak to the experience of many.

Furthermore, if we find ourselves needing to break empathy into such distinct categories, I wonder if we risk losing a sense of its more fluid, dynamic nature as it unfolds between persons. A more wholistic view, it seems, would strive to capture this more unified, flowing experience. And if, as it appears, there isn't always a complete consensus on the precise meaning of these divided terms, one might ask if this brings the clarity we hope for, or if it might sometimes lead to misunderstandings.

It is, therefore, with some interest that I observe what seems to be a gentle shift in some academic conversations, a willingness to re-examine this separation. The idea that what we term 'affective' and 'cognitive' aspects of empathy might be more like two facets of the same precious gem, deeply interconnected, feels more congruent with my own understanding of persons. It seems we might benefit from models that highlight this inherent collaboration.

So, I find myself drawn to the possibility that it might indeed be time for a fresh look, a movement towards a more wholistic understanding of empathy. An approach that truly celebrates the interwoven nature of our thoughts and feelings, that perhaps uses language that feels more alive, more accessible, and more reflective of the vibrant nature of this capacity. One that deeply honors our experience as whole, indivisible persons. It feels that in doing so, we might come to an even richer appreciation of this remarkable human ability.

If the Affective-Cognitive model, for all its contributions, seems to present certain limitations in this regard, then perhaps this is where an exploration of what is being called the Wholistic Empathy Model might offer a valuable path. My sense is that such an approach would aim to be more congruent with the actual, lived reality of how we connect, and might find its fullest expression in settings like the Empathy Circle, which are so dedicated to fostering that deep, present, and understanding connection between individuals. It is towards such an integration that my own learnings seem to point."

General Problems with the Cognitive Empathy Model 

1. 1. Understanding  -  another's perspective or mental state

      1. 1. in Carl Rogers’ framework, “understanding” refers to a deep, felt sense of the other person’s internal experience — not just intellectual comprehension of their situation. 

            1. 1. Phenomenological Understanding = Direct, experiential grasp of the other’s lived experience 

         2. this is creating a map or model of who the other person is.

         3. In the Empathy Circle there are different ways of understanding is created

            1. 1.  empathizing with the Speaker, 

               2. Self Empathy sensing into self,  

               3. Imagining - role taking.

               4. sensing into the whole group.

   2. Imagining - 

      1. 1. Empathy Circle this would happen in Imaginative Empathy 

         2. In the Empathy Circle:  

   3. Perspective-taking -  the capacity to put oneself in another’s shoes 

      1. 1. This is imagining. 

         2. Empathy Circle - this would happen in Imaginative Empathy. This is

         3. you can imagine another, but you could imagine incorrectly. where as with basic direct empathy you are present with the other person. and you can reflect them and get feedback on how accurate you were.  

         4. Imaginative empathy is still a good way to get insights and understanding. 

         5. Story of the woman who had a problem with her boss, then friend said imagine what they are going through and that gave her care for his situation. 

         6. In the Empathy Circle:  

   4. Identification -  The intellectual ability to identify with and understand another person's emotions

   5. 
      

General Problems with the Affective Empathy Model 

• • • • Affective Empathy is often defined as an emotional reaction to what happens when we empathize or sensing into the feelings of someone.  In the Empathy Circle the listener listens to the speaker and empathizes with them by sensing into the fullness of who the listener is and what they are expressing. 

        • • There is the dynamic of the listener sensing into another person and how that works. 

          •  In the listener all kinds of feelings may arise by what the listener hears and feels from the speaker.

      • Edwin would not see the reactions as empathy. Sensing into the feelings of someone is the emotional part of empathy, not the reactions to what one finds. 

        • • The reactions often block the flow of empathy. (In the circle, the reactions of the listener to the speaker would be considered empathy by Affective Empathy (reaction). The model has many aspects that would be possible reactions to feeling into someone's experience. 

Types of Reactions

• • • Feeling Sympathy

      • Feeling for Another Person Who Is Suffering). Speaker is sad, Listener becomes sad and feels sorry for the speaker and Says, "I'm so sorry"

        • Example In the Empathy Circle - 

        • Notes: 

          • The listener feels sorry for the speaker.  The listener has negative feelings and It can motivate them to relive the suffering of their own distress., i.e. the listener. They try to help the speaker but the reason is so they themselves do not feel bad.  It is not necessarily directed toward the goal of relieving the other’s distress. It can be directed toward the goal of relieving the speakers own personal sadness or distress.

          • "sympathy entails being moved by or responding emotionally in tune with another individual's distress.1

        • The Reaction starts with empathy. If you are with someone that is sad, you can become distressed.. The distress could be a reaction to the sadness in the other person. You first have to empathize, i.e. sense into, the experience of the other person to be aware of it. The sympathy and distress of the listener then can become a block to empathy.

    • Feeling Distress

      • •  sometimes called “empathic distress" or "personal distress". 

        • Example In the Empathy Circle - The speaker talks about their very stressful health issue where they have deep feelings of  depression, anger, loneliness, pain and great physical pain.  The listener becomes distressed by this and can no longer reflect back what the speaker is saying.  This distress in the listener then becomes a block to empathy. 

          • The Empathic Response would be "I hear you are feeling depression, anger, loneliness, emotional and physical pain".  The speaker

          • Notes: 

    • Projection 

      • • Notes: 

    • Feeling Anger

      • • The Reaction starts with empathy. 

        •  Empathy [reaction]. This logic would mean that every reaction to empathizing would be called empathy (reaction). i.e. empathic concern, empathic joy, empathic distress, empathic contagion, empathic fatigue, empathic 'reaction',.  Which does not make a lot of sense.

        • Reason [reaction]. If this was the naming convention it should be used with reason as well.  When you are reasoning out a problem and you feel tired, we should call the reason fatigue. Or you are reasoning out some problem and you get distressed, that could be called reason 'distress'. Or reasoning out concept, and you feel joy, t that would be reason 'joy.'

        • Notes: 

    • Feeling as the other person feels

      • Notes: Feeling as the speaker feels may actually inhibit the empathic process of feelings into the speaker if it  leads the speaker to become focused on their own emotional state.

General Problems with the Empathic Concern Model
This is a form of what people would call affective empathy because is based on feelings of concern and sympathy.

Components In Depth

• • Affective Empathy

  • Cognitive Empathy 

  • Empathic Concern (or Compassion)

References

The Big Idea: No More Cognitive and Affective Empathy?
Lidewij Niezink, Ph.D., and Katherine Train, Ph.D.
"The current false dichotomy holds back research and stimulates cherry-picking."
(article says we need to get past the cognitive/affective dichotomy but see them as both needed.)

• people say emotional empathy is not good at work but cognitive empathy is good.

• some people say,  "emotional empathy is the messy business of emotions"

•  cognitive empathy definition -" involves understanding others’ thoughts and feelings without necessarily reacting emotionally, whereas emotional empathy involves experiencing emotions in response to others’ emotional experiences or expressions"  

• they say, "Empathy requires both emotion and cognition".

•  "empathic accuracy", "the ability to infer what someone else is feeling "

  • • (I don't think it is inferring, but how accurate our empathy is.)