Me too :-)

I am low on the innate scale and extremely high on the constructed.

I’ve been accused of lacking compassion or empathy by some, and deeply praised for my compassion and empathy by others . . . so this is a topic I’m very interested in.

“When you posted your comment, what were your motivations, deep down, for doing so? Were you commenting purely for everyone else’s sake? Or do you get at least some amount of personal satisfaction or benefit from it?”

The short answer is both. For my benefit in terms of learning more about a concept that intuitively seems useful but that I don’t sense that I understand well*, to help others that may not understand, and the comment about helpers & props, is a of a personal pet peeve about narcissists leaking out– so helps me in some ways via venting it and hopefully helps others become actually more helpful which in turn might help those who need help.

* also so that I perhaps gain a broader context/framework with which to influence the world (even if by one person at a time) to a better place . . . which in turn makes my experience of the world better.

I’m still uncertain about the answer to question “but the people that don’t think about it and blindly follow is that really empathy, even constructed? ”

I’m not just asking if the people blindly following the constructed rules of logically based empathy are emotionally empathetic, I’m asking if they are even aware enough to engage consciously in logic based empathy. (Ie being ‘good’ because it’s a good idea, rather than because it feels good).

The concept of socially constructed empathy reminds me of some aspects of what might have been the purpose of religion a long time ago.

Also what you call ‘enlightened self interest’ I used to think of as actual rational self interest, but since that term comes with Randian baggage, I think I like your term better.

For those on constructive/autistic end of the spectrum, they can’t “relate” at all to how the other person feels, and often doesn’t even know what the real issue is in a conversation. They take everything literally. Pat says to Chris, “I’m so upset! My dad got mad at me for getting his dog that cute little Gucci Poochy doggy vest for Christmas. I’m so offended! How can he be so ungrateful?!!” and Chris replies, “Here’s the solution: don’t get your dad anymore presents and then he can’t make you upset.”

Constructive empathy without innate leads Chris to “solve the problem” when all Pat wanted was to feel understood.

Innate empathy without constructive leads Pat (ironically) to narcissistic behaviors because Pat can’t fathom that other people (and animals) don’t have the same values as Pat and react totally differently than Pat would in the same circumstance.

Without being grounded in a little bit of reality of what it means to be human (being born and having imperfect parents), this argument quickly turns into a stalemate of semantics. The key is that we all have:
1. unrecognized hangups and internal conflicts that affect us from the past and they reverberate – aka “baggage”
2. imperfect ability to communicate our needs for a variety of reasons
3. imperfect understanding of the emergent nature of relationships. #1 and #2 are SUFFICIENT conditions to cause two people to split between escalating conflict to communicate a need, while the other one flees the conflict to protect their own need. Both people end up being even more INSECURE about getting what they need from the other, so when the next conflict arises, they resort to this type of DE-solution, if you will. This turns into a cycle of negative reinforcement.

So what’s the connection? Thinking about path dependency gets us out of the semantic stalemate of this debate. Mirror neurons are almost crying out for us to give (in) FIRST. Look to the past to resolve internal conflicts. I highly recommend the book. and a soulmate vs a lifetime of stalemates ;)

I’ve been accused of lacking compassion or empathy by some, and deeply praised for my compassion and empathy by others . . . so this is a topic I’m very interested in.

“When you posted your comment, what were your motivations, deep down, for doing so? Were you commenting purely for everyone else’s sake? Or do you get at least some amount of personal satisfaction or benefit from it?”

The short answer is both. For my benefit in terms of learning more about a concept that intuitively seems useful but that I don’t sense that I understand well*, to help others that may not understand, and the comment about helpers & props, is a of a personal pet peeve about narcissists leaking out– so helps me in some ways via venting it and hopefully helps others become actually more helpful which in turn might help those who need help.

* also so that I perhaps gain a broader context/framework with which to influence the world (even if by one person at a time) to a better place . . . which in turn makes my experience of the world better.

I’m still uncertain about the answer to question “but the people that don’t think about it and blindly follow is that really empathy, even constructed? ”

I’m not just asking if the people blindly following the constructed rules of logically based empathy are emotionally empathetic, I’m asking if they are even aware enough to engage consciously in logic based empathy. (Ie being ‘good’ because it’s a good idea, rather than because it feels good).

The concept of socially constructed empathy reminds me of some aspects of what might have been the purpose of religion a long time ago.

Also what you call ‘enlightened self interest’ I used to think of as actual rational self interest, but since that term comes with Randian baggage, I think I like your term better.