question: How do you explain the difference between sympathizing with someone and empathizing with someone?
comment: Sympathy is the act of understanding someone else's emotions. Empathy is feeling those emotions yourself. For example, if a friend's parent recently passed away you might feel sympathy if you understand that they are sad. But, if you also had a parent pass away you can remember the same feelings you had at that time. So, you can empathize with the person because you feel (or have felt) the same way they do.
passages: There are concerns that the empathizer's own emotional background may affect or distort what emotions they perceive in others. It is evidenced that societies that promote individualism have lower ability for empathy. Empathy is not a process that is likely to deliver certain judgments about the emotional states of others. It is a skill that is gradually developed throughout life, and which improves the more contact we have with the person with whom one empathizes. Empathizers report finding it easier to take the perspective of another person when they have experienced a similar situation, as well as experience greater empathic understanding. Research regarding whether similar past experience makes the empathizer more accurate is mixed.
   For example, when a normally pleasant waiter is being rude to his/her customer, the customer may assume he/she has a bad temper. The customer, just by looking at the attitude that the waiter is giving him/her, instantly decides that the waiter is a bad person. The customer oversimplifies the situation by not taking into account all the unfortunate events that might have happened to the waiter which made him/her become rude at that moment. Therefore, the customer made dispositional attribution by attributing the waiter's behavior directly to his/her personality rather than considering situational factors that might have caused the whole "rudeness".
   Studies found that individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) self-report lower levels of empathic concern, show less or absent comforting responses toward someone who is suffering, and report equal or higher levels of personal distress compared to controls. The combination of reduced empathic concern and increased personal distress may lead to the overall reduction of empathy in ASD.
   BULLET::::- Emotional mirroring – Empathizing with someone's emotional state by being on 'their side'. You must apply the skill of being a good listener in this situation so as you can listen for key words and problems that arise when speaking with the person. This is so you can talk about these issues and question them to better your understanding of what they are saying and show your empathy towards them (Arnold, E and Boggs, josh. 2007).
   On this Guilty Head, and let me think no more."Appamia is closely linked to the Greek mythological figure of Medea: at one point she explicitly compares herself to Medea, and both woman murdered their love-rivals with an extremely painful poison. K. Heavey writes that Pix 'recognised the dramatic and pathetic potential of a comparison between Medea and a scorned woman'.
   Empathic distress is feeling the perceived pain of another person. This feeling can be transformed into empathic anger, feelings of injustice, or guilt. These emotions can be perceived as pro-social, and some say they can be seen as motives for moral behavior.
  
  Section::::Impairment.
   Section::::Disciplinary approaches.:History.
  
  Some postmodern historians such as Keith Jenkins in recent years have debated whether or not it is possible to empathize with people from the past. Jenkins argues that empathy only enjoys such a privileged position in the present because it corresponds harmoniously with the dominant liberal discourse of modern society and can be connected to John Stuart Mill's concept of reciprocal freedom. Jenkins argues the past is a foreign country and as we do not have access to the epistemological conditions of by gone ages we are unable to empathize.
   The English word "empathy" is derived from the Ancient Greek word ("empatheia", meaning "physical affection or passion"). This, in turn, comes from ("en", "in, at") and ("pathos", "passion" or "suffering"). The term was adapted by Hermann Lotze and Robert Vischer to create the German word ("feeling into"), which was translated by Edward B. Titchener into the English word "empathy". However, in modern means, depending on context,: prejudice, malevolence, malice, and hatred.
   Studies also suggest that individuals with ASD may have impaired theory of mind, involving the ability to understand the perspectives of others. The terms "cognitive empathy" and "theory of mind" are often used synonymously, but due to a lack of studies comparing theory of mind with types of empathy, it is unclear whether these are equivalent. Notably, many reports on the empathic deficits of individuals with Asperger syndrome are actually based on impairments in theory of mind.
   Section::::Empathic anger and distress.:Anger.
  
  Empathic anger is an emotion, a form of empathic distress. Empathic anger is felt in a situation where someone else is being hurt by another person or thing. It is possible to see this form of anger as a pro-social emotion.
  
  Empathic anger has direct effects on both helping and punishing desires. Empathic anger can be divided into two sub-categories: trait empathic anger and state empathic anger.
   Dio Chrysostom, in his fourth oration on kingship, ascribes a simple moral to the anecdote: People who are naturally outspoken and forthright respect others like themselves, whereas cowards regard such people as enemies. A good king will respect and tolerate the candour of a morally sincere critic (albeit that they must take care to determine which critics truly are sincere, and which are simply feigning sincerity), and Diogenes' remark to Alexander is a test of Diogenes. His bravery in risking offending Alexander, without knowing whether he would be tolerant of such behaviour beforehand, marks him as honest.
   Section::::Implications.
  
  Section::::Implications.:Aggression.
   When observing the anger of another person, for example, we are unlikely to sympathize with this person because we "are unacquainted with his provocation" and as a result cannot imagine what it is like to feel what he feels. Further, since we can see the "fear and resentment" of those who are the targets of the person's anger we are likely to sympathize and take side with them. Thus, sympathetic responses are often conditional on—or their magnitude is determined by—the causes of the emotion in the person being sympathized with.
  
  BULLET::::- Whether other people are involved in the emotion
   Early studies investigating links between hostile attribution bias and aggression were somewhat mixed, with some studies reporting no significant effects or small effects and other studies reporting large effects. Since then, over 100 studies and a meta-analysis have documented a robust association between hostile attribution bias and aggressive behavior across various samples ranging in age, gender, race, countries, and clinical populations.
  
  Section::::Theoretical formulation.
   Empathic concern
  
  Empathic concern refers to other-oriented emotions elicited by and congruent with the perceived welfare of someone in need. These other-oriented emotions include feelings of tenderness, sympathy, compassion, soft-heartedness, and the like. 
  
  Empathic concern is often and wrongly confused with empathy. To empathize is to respond to another's perceived emotional state by experiencing feeling of a similar sort. Empathic concern or sympathy not only include empathizing, but also entails having a positive regard or a non-fleeting concern for the other person.
  
  Section::::Definition.
   However, in general, any expression of anger is improper in the presence of others. This is because the "immediate effects [of anger] are disagreeable" just as the knives of surgery are disagreeable for art, as the immediate effect of surgery is unpleasant even though long-term effect is justified. Likewise, even when anger is justly provoked, it is disagreeable. According to Smith, this explains why we reserve sympathy until we know the cause of the anger or resentment, since, if the emotion is not justified by the action of another person, then the immediate disagreeableness and threat to the other person (and by sympathy to ourselves) overwhelm any sympathy that the spectator may have for the offended. In response to expressions of anger, hatred, or resentment, it is likely that the impartial spectator will not feel anger in sympathy with the offended but instead anger "toward" the offended for expressing such an aversive. Smith believes that there is some form of natural optimality to the aversiveness of these emotions, as it reduces the propagation of ill will among people, and thus increases the probability of functional societies.
   Section::::Mutuality.
  
  What is the relation between reciprocity and love, friendship or family relationships? If such relationships are ideally ones in which the parties are connected by mutual affection and benevolence, shouldn't justice and reciprocity stay out of their way? Isn't impartiality inconsistent with love? Doesn't acting on principle take the affection out of friendship or family relationships? Doesn't following the norm of reciprocity eliminate unconditional love or loyalty?
   BULLET::::1. The Victim: The Victim's stance is ""Poor me!"" The Victim feels victimized, oppressed, helpless, hopeless, powerless, ashamed, and seems unable to make decisions, solve problems, take pleasure in life, or achieve insight. The Victim, if not being persecuted, will seek out a Persecutor and also a Rescuer who will save the day but also perpetuate the Victim's negative feelings.
   companionship + understanding + assurance + joy + altruism ÷ respect ÷ commendation ÷ sympathy x innocence x dignity x success x acceptance y=n where y=despair and n=caution, love=truth, death=rebirth, and self=light side
   All of these different relationships involve getting on well with someone, though Aristotle at times implies that something more like actual liking is required. When he is talking about the character or disposition that falls between obsequiousness or flattery on the one hand and surliness or quarrelsomeness on the other, he says that this state:
  
  This passage indicates also that, though broad, the notion of philia must be mutual, and thus excludes relationships with inanimate objects, though philia with animals, such as pets, is allowed for (see 1155b27–31).
   Section::::Theories and models.:Three-dimensional model.
   The structure of the theory was built based on three ideas. First classify the different kinds of discomfort felt by those people holding contrasting ideals experienced, as well as the various types of emotional vulnerabilities felt by the different types of discrepancies. Lastly, to consider the role of the different discrepancies in influencing the kind and type of discomfort individuals are most likely to experience.
  
  Section::::Domains of the self.
  
  The theory postulates three basic domains of the self:
  
  Section::::Domains of the self.:Actual.
   The motivations for each participant and the reason the situation endures is that each gets their unspoken (and frequently unconscious) psychological wishes/needs met in a manner they feel justified, without having to acknowledge the broader dysfunction or harm done in the situation as a whole. As such, each participant is acting upon their own selfish needs, rather than acting in a genuinely responsible or altruistic manner. Thus any character from all of three in this triangle might ""ordinarily come on like a plaintive victim; it is now clear that the one can switch into the role of Persecutor providing it is 'accidental' and the one apologizes for it"".
   The relationship between empathy and anger response towards another person has also been investigated, with two studies basically finding that the higher a person's perspective taking ability, the less angry they were in response to a provocation. Empathic concern did not, however, significantly predict anger response, and higher personal distress was associated with increased anger.
  
  Section::::Empathic anger and distress.:Distress.
   Section::::Types of assistance.
  