which category of explanation do you find most promising?

ellicent
@ellicent
3 years ago
40 posts

I'm sure many of you, like me, are interested in the cause or source of empathic abilities.

Which category of explanation do you find more promising? Biological/Neural/Electrical, or Quantum? (or something else) and why?

Personally I find the quantum explanation a little more promising. While we'd be definitely closer to figuring it out if it's biological, the fact that I (and many of you apparently) experience emapthic connections over many miles kind of disproves any waves/mirror neurons/whathaveyou as the distance is just too far.


updated by @ellicent: 09/01/18 07:18:42PM
Lulip
Lulip
@lulip
3 years ago
36 posts

I feel like it must be a mix of the categories, and that it probably varies for each person. Simply because, something as complex as an empaths abilities must have many different factors. And I can agree with the distance part, as I have picked up VERY strong emotions from as far away as Canada to Brazil, and Australia.

LaoG
LaoG
@laog
3 years ago
137 posts

I was reading on personalityhacker.com information about a personality type in Carl Jung's theory called INFJ. I think the ability to unconsciously process emotional information is because of being that type(rarest personality type, statistically speaking less than 1% of population). I read about two cognitive functions in Jung's theory Ni(introverted intuition)INFJ types use this mainly and Fe(extroverted feeling) INFJ types use this as their auxiliary function, then there is Ti(introverted thinking) and after that Se(extroverted sensing). From what I can tell INFJ uses Se(a little) to understand the physical aspect of expressions mildly and Fe to quantify them(Fe is auxillary so it is really used a lot), then they can use their Ti to understand the inner qualities of the emotion better, and then Ni(the dominant and unconscious/subconscious cognitive function) to fill the gap of the subconscious psychological link(this is just a theory I am not sure about Ni it is very mystical). So basically unlike other personality types in Jung theory INFJ which has been called the most psychic has 3 sensory based functions as the top 3 cognitive functions, and the result would be a walking mental/emotional radar. They are usually very spiritual people compared to others so have many 'aha' moments compared to others.

People who are predicted to be INFJ's are: Jesus, Plato, Martin Luther King, Gandhi, Carl Jung, Niels Bohr, Osama Bin Laden, Hitler.

INFJ's can be very selfless and enjoy routine but also insightful and may seek a profession like counselling. INFP is a type that can sense people well as well, though INFJ types seem to have a crazy accurate emotional sensory gift. Unfortunately, being the rarest type, they are often the most isolated, and when unbalanced they can be very dangerous. A healthy INFJ is an empath and an unhealthy one is a psychopath.

Though they are introverts they can seem like extroverts because of their auxiliary function Fe(which is about social harmony, hence why empaths are so nice). This is all what I have tried to piece together based on the sites I have been reading and some info is pretty much copied. It is a theory in the end but I think it is quite accurate. Another thing: INFJ can be commonly mistyped as INTP or INFP.

Lulip
Lulip
@lulip
3 years ago
36 posts

It seems like a very plausible theory. However, what do you mean by an unbalanced INFJ is a psychopath? From what I understand, psychopaths lack the ability to feel any sympathy/empathy for other people, basically making them the opposite of empaths. Would this mean that psychopaths would be able to find balance again, and become an empath? I've never heard of a psychopath changing. Unless you mean the INFJ personality gives a person the probability of being either an empath or a psychopath, which seems to me like a certain area of the brain would either be inactive, (psychopath) or extremely active (empath).

If that was the case, then to find the scientific explanation for empaths, it would simply be the opposite of a psychopath, where studies have already been done and the results are public.

But that's just another theory too. What do you think?

LaoG
LaoG
@laog
3 years ago
137 posts

Well INFJ has that overpowered ability to read people. Fe is usually about harmony but if the shadow function Fi, which is about personal beliefs has a different definition of 'harmony' than usual then it can be dangerous. If personal beliefs from Fi(introverted feeling) is too influential then Fe could be ignored when making a moral decision, and only used in the process of reading people. Psychopaths can sense people well and empaths can sense people well. Empaths become sypathetic because of the understanding, but not every INFJ is sympathetic because of their understanding. There are INFJ's that go ''*** the world'' because of whatever reason, and no matter the personality type anyone can be evil.

Psychopath is a vague word, but there is a category of them that can read people perfectly. An example of this in theory, would be Hitler's Nazi beliefs(Fi) hijacking Fe(which seeks harmony) and turning him into a murderer. In a sense, it was justified by Fe(many native Germans had a better life under his reign but a lot of people still died as a result of his tyranny.) which gave a group of people harmony. 'For the aryan race' was Fe justification for Fi(must keep the blood pure). In a sense, you can interpret, the Fe was at an extremely crazy high level, since to him he really believed he was making the world better.

Hence why an extreme altruist like Ghandi and Jesus are INFJ along with people like Bin Laden and Hitler. INFJ can be a very extreme group because of the lack of mastery over Fi, the extremes that Fe can encourage, and the Ni intuition that is monstrous.

Lulip
Lulip
@lulip
3 years ago
36 posts

I meant that I live in Canada, and have detected emotions from Brazil/Australia.

It was through 2 online friends. When I sensed sensed emotions from Brazil, I had been asleep and then jolted awake with a feeling of urgency. I checked my messages and found that the friend from Brazil had been spamming me about something. It couldn't have been a notification sound that woke me up, because it was on my computer which was off at the time, and my computer had headphones plugged in.

For Australia, I had been talking to my friend over skype for a bit (just typing). My stomach started to hurt a lot for no reason, and a bit later my friend confessed she had a horrible stomach ache from something she ate.

Lulip
Lulip
@lulip
3 years ago
36 posts

Well... you did ask.

What kind of "backing evidence" do you want?

LaoG
LaoG
@laog
3 years ago
137 posts

1. What kind of tangible evidence could be given for something so abstract? It would be impossible to prove what I thought of or felt 3 seconds ago for example, with the current available technology known to the common person.

2. If an occurrence is extremely frequent it is reasonable to not dismiss as coincidence. If everything is relational by cause and effect, then such frequent occurrences have a cause that may be harder for the common senses to detect.

3. To believe that everything is explainable to people in 'logical' terms assumes first, that humans are competent enough to explain the complex occurrences that happen to them. Many people myself included cannot explain everything they experience.

4. It is obvious people are not able to sense everything in existence acutely, therefore assuming what cannot be 'quantified' by basic senses does not exist, would be subtly entertaining the idea that humans only sense what does exist.

5. Because an occurrence does not provide an aftermath that is physically perceivable to the common person does not mean that it did not occur. Eg. I thought of the word bagel, but I cannot prove that with my resources, and I doubt scientists can.

Science is nice and has helped a lot but scientists usually dismiss these freakishly accurate coincidences with the alibi 'its just luck' a lot when those 5 points should all be taken into consideration. If man needs technology to detect a single celled amoeba then, it is reasonable to be open to the possibility they cannot detect an even greater subtlety which causes these 'phenomena' to occur, especially considering the limit of their physical senses compared to animals lower on the food chain.

ellicent
@ellicent
3 years ago
40 posts

That's the struggle -- Thinking of a way to "measure" this type of response.

I've noticed the people I mirror the feelings/emotions of people I care about even over a great distance. Perhaps some sort of blind experiment could be set up, have the empath in one room and a person they care about next door. Show pictures/video/whatever to elicit an emotional response from the friend, and ask the empath at the same time how they feel or how they think their friend feels. Take down the feelings and compare...
It's not the greatest, but maybe a place to start?

ellicent
@ellicent
3 years ago
40 posts

Coincidence was always what I attributed all my feelings to too. It's just happened enough that I have started to doubt that.

It's just getting too much to be coincidence, or, at least, the probability of me jolting awake to contact suicidal friends is low compared to the amount of times I've done it.

ellicent
@ellicent
3 years ago
40 posts

huh interesting

funnily enough when I was taking one of those personality tests my mum linked to me a couple months ago I got INFP. I'm not sure how much stock I put in those tests as they are voluntary answer and, well, people have self-biases (and i am no exception) but it's still interesting !

ellicent
@ellicent
3 years ago
40 posts

Well, one for example.

I was on vacation over the summer. (over 800 miles from home) It was around 3:40 in the morning and I jolted awake for no particular reason (no noises, phone was on silent, no wind) and had the strong urge to text my friend from back home because something didn't seem right

I did, and turns out he was feeling suicidal that night.

I've had other similar ones over shorter distances (10 or 15 miles or so)

ellicent
@ellicent
3 years ago
40 posts

and that seems the most logical explanation, which is why I like it so much. Only problem is it doesn't apply to the situations I've experienced where I haven't been in the same room as someone yet still got their feelings/sense that something's wrong

LaoG
LaoG
@laog
3 years ago
137 posts

Well INFP/INFJ are considered the 2 types with high emotional sensory. INFJ is more unconscious sensing than conscious though.

ellicent
@ellicent
3 years ago
40 posts

i meant to type infj, oops!

Want to reply? Login here

From Our Sponsors

  • empath book