Ask HN: How to build empathy?

The easiest way is to not assume you yourself are very intelligent. Once you can do that, it's a lot easier since you are suddenly not "surrounded by idiots." Even the smartest people can get duped by their own hubris. Otherwise, I guess you might as well grab a blanket and settle into a comfy superiority complex.

I often think that if I had one supernatural wish to make, I’d like to inhabit the inner-life and sensations of someone else. See, feel, hear, think, intuit, and fear like they do. Not as an observer, but as a first-hand experience. Whether that person is dumb, hyper-intelligent, manic, depressed, or autistic.

As I mature I’m starting to appreciate how very different our inner-experiences can be. Even for something as simple as what we experience when we count silently in our heads: Some people hear a voice counting numbers, some see the numbers without auditory cues, and some feel the counting as pulses in their bodies.

For this reason, I would very much like to inhabit someone else to feel just how divergent those experiences may be.

> You know and have experienced things they haven't.

They also know and have experienced things you haven't.

I'd say that listen their description of the problem is the first (and maybe easy) part. But then you don't have to provide your solution, but rather find it together with that person.

Treating the other person as intelligent as you helps sharing the problem solving part instead of doing it individually.

Listening requires allowing your conversation partner to fill the silence with their thoughts rather than filling it with yours. So at the risk of pointing out the obvious, to improve your listening skill try talking less.

In the middle of a technical explanation, sometimes people will pause and say something like "Is this making sense so far?" The question makes it fairly clear that the explanation isn't finished and that they have more to say. The same pause to confirm that the other person is engaged and understands occurs in personal discussions, but it might not be marked with an explicit question. So by talking less, you allow the other person to finish what they're saying and drive the conversation where they want it to go.

For example, consider the following variations of a hypothetical conversation -

Version 1

>A: "My coworker keeps interrupting me to ask questions that could easily be answered by reading the documentation. They've literally been messaging me at least once an hour."

>B: "Wow, that sounds so annoying!"

>A: "Yeah, it is. This morning I finally couldn't take it anymore and muted DMs from them so I could get some work done in peace. It was such a nice change."

Version 2

>A: "My coworker keeps interrupting me to ask questions that could easily be answered by reading the documentation. They've literally been messaging me at least once an hour."

>A's mom: "It's great that they trust you as a reliable source of information. I hope your boss recognizes what an asset you are!"

>A: "Uh... yeah, thanks mom. Anyway, how's your vegetable garden coming along?"

Version 3

>A: "My coworker keeps interrupting me to ask questions that could easily be answered by reading the documentation. They've literally been messaging me at least once an hour."

>C: "Wow, that sounds so annoying! Have you talked to them about how disruptive it is? If that doesn't work, you should talk to your boss. You don't want to be blamed if their interruptions end up delaying your work."

>A: "Fortunately it hasn't been that bad. I don't want to turn it into a bigger issue than it actually is by going to my boss about it."

Really the story that A wanted to tell was about muting the DMs, the initial pause just served to make sure it was the right audience to tell the story to (and that the audience was listening and not distracted by something else). In version 1, B conveyed that they understood and so A was able to finish telling the story. Version 2 demonstrates why A is pausing - A's mom wasn't the right audience, so better to just change the subject. In version 3, after A pauses C fills the silence with their own thoughts about the situation, which takes the conversation in a different direction than A had intended. C meant well, but if they had instead created silence (by not continuing to talk) after expressing understanding, they could have listened to A fill that silence with the story that A had hoped to tell.

Counterintuitive idea: learn to not be "curious about the person situation, while not really caring about the person".

Basically focus on listening and asking details while not really giving deep solutions but rather general advices.

This has 2 advantages:

- by not caring you will focus less on actual solutions and more on listening. You will learn a lot of funny stories if you do that with funny people

- people will still feel you care about them, while if you speak they will think you make it about you.

- your solutions would be useless anyway because What people REALLY want is ranting / blowing steam off / talking out loud to clarify their thinking, basically turning you into a "duck" (the bathing plastic duck you explain your problem which in turns makes it more clear to you and makes you fins the solution). Its actually a good thing for them. The bottom line is that they dont NEED your solutions.

If you do that, most people will say you are a "great person to talk" to. And they actually solve their problems faster that if you gave any solution ^^