I scanned the page for 'empathy' and there was not a single mention of it.
'Emotional generosity', the thing at the start of the article, doesn't count. I don't know where that language came from but it doesn't sound empathetic, it sounds transactional.
I don't really care for what else the author has to say, having understood that
Its more a guide for pandering to the narcicissts who infect our lives and make us miserable.
If you find yourself having to perform these rituals in the workspace, stop yourself.
When dealing with emotionally damaged people who never made it to fully functional adult, speak to them in a monotone and don't engage with the emotional manipulation they are attempting. This will confuse them, then enrage them, then finally they will admit defeat.
Do not pander to the emotionally manipulative person ever.
Do not empathize with people who are damaged or unsophisticated! Instead, enrage them. Exploit their weakness to break them and bend them to your will.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If I spent my life being a histrionic dick, I would fully expect to be treated in a way that minimised the damage I could do to other people. Containing and minimising the narcissist in the workplace is the only way to remain sane. Try working with one and use the principles in the thread article and see how it works out. I've tried it, the consequences were brutal.
If I were a histrionic dick, I'd hope that more sophisticated people would use their superior vantage point to help me mature, instead of enraging and walking over me.
As it happens, I was a histrionic and narcissistic dick. Sometimes more mature people exploited my weakness, as you're suggesting, making me look foolish and getting their way. They'd win the battle, but they'd start a war. I'd make it a mission to do damage to them for embarrassing me, and I'd generally succeed. I'd often take damage myself in this war, but a pyrrhic victory was fine. I'd get my revenge.
I didn't change until my 20's, largely steered by someone who fully understood my limitations and less than prosocial proclivities. They showed me some compassion, gently guiding me toward being a decent person.
One can claim it's unfair that dicks should be treated with greater empathy and kindness than they give others. But they're not going to change otherwise. And underneath, they're indeed damaged. I'd rather live in a world where we help damaged people, instead of just kicking them out of the way.
We have limited capacity to save the humans around us, of course. If you truly can't help, such as with strangers or coworkers, the best practice against unhinged narcissists is called "tactical empathy" [1]. You can cool them off without creating a war.
I can guarantee that some of the people you "enraged" were subsequently plotting against you. Maybe you have a high tolerance for that, but I don't want people plotting to hurt me; that's scary. To avoid that, you can use tactical empathy to gracefully cool them off, while still giving them nothing. It's more humane, and it's safer.
This is good advice, it really is. But I'm not jesus and on top of that, I really don't care about anybody plotting against me because I don't work in a corporate environment where I have to pander to anybody. I'm old and I'm done pandering. I sympathise with the idea that there are people who are insane to deal with that should be treated with empathy to steer them towards the right path. I don't see that as my job - it just encourages people to behave worse in my experience. Give them an inch, they'll take a mile as the old saying goes. The best thing to do for your fellow man is protect them from the world's arseholes as much as you can, which is going to leave a few narcissistic casualties along the way. It's a trade off like anything.
you do not empathize with a sociopath. its their game, they want you to care for them. they get angry when you just say "no" to them. you have to have a cold stone face when you do it, and keep it during their ape like rage in front of you. just "no" makes them psychotic.
christianity is a pro feudal religion wher there is the ruler, which can do whathever he wants(god) and subjects that have to shut up and ready the second cheek
'Emotional generosity', the thing at the start of the article, doesn't count. I don't know where that language came from but it doesn't sound empathetic, it sounds transactional.
I don't really care for what else the author has to say, having understood that