AI Empathy in Mediation; When Algorithms Show Compassion

By Michael Lardy
January 6, 2026

https://mediate.com/ai-empathy-in-mediation-when-algorithms-show-compassion/

Empathy, a key core competency in mediation, is not merely a personality trait, but fulfills a methodological function: it builds trust, enables perspective-taking, and forms the basis for constructive communication between conflicting parties. Without a minimum level of empathic resonance, it is difficult to create a safe space in which interests and emotions can be openly discussed(1).

With the advent of powerful AI systems, especially large language models (LLMs = ) such as ChatGPT, Gemini, or Claude, the question increasingly arises as to whether and to what extent these systems can develop or at least simulate a comparable capacity for empathy(2). This question touches on the selfimage of a profession that has so far focused on humans as beings with the unique ability to feel compassion and empathy(3).

In recent years, research on this topic has developed very dynamically: numerous studies have shown that LLMs can identify and name emotional states in test situations and respond appropriately to them – in some cases even better than human comparison groups(4). Other studies, however, warn against the “illusion of empathy,” i.e., linguistic warmth without genuine understanding of content(5). This distinction is essential for mediation practice, as every statement is made in the context of complex relationship dynamics.

Against this background, my aim in this article is to present the current state of research on the empathy of AI systems, describe their possibilities and limitations in the context of mediation-related processes, and discuss the ethical and social implications.

What is empathy?

Empathy is not a uniformly defined term in psychological and communication science literature. Most authors distinguish between cognitive empathy—the intellectual understanding of another person’s feelings and perspectives—and affective empathy—the emotional experience of these feelings(6). In some cases, a third dimension is distinguished, namely compassion, which encompasses not only empathy but also the motivation to act in a supportive manner(7) (8) (9).

All three dimensions play a role in mediation, with cognitive empathy being particularly important in the structured reconstruction of perspectives, while affective empathy strengthens emotional connection and compassion acts as a de-escalating impulse for action(10). However, transferring these concepts to AI systems encounters methodological and conceptual limitations: machines have neither subjective experience nor emotions in the human sense, but can only recognize patterns in language or other data and reproduce them(11).

To measure empathy in the context of artificial intelligence, methods based on observable functions and performance are therefore usually used. One of the most important models is the EPITOME framework (Emotional Reactions, Interpretations, Explorations), which was originally developed for the analysis of peer support conversations(12). It codes empathic communication into three mechanisms: the immediate emotional reaction to a statement, the interpretation of the underlying meaning, and exploration through follow-up questions. Studies show that LLMs are particularly strong in the first category—the linguistic mirroring of emotions—while they perform weaker on average in interpretation and exploration(13).

Another established measurement approach is the Levels of Emotional Awareness Scale (LEAS), a psychological test that confronts test subjects with hypothetical scenarios and assesses their ability to name their own and others’ emotions in a differentiated manner(14). In a study by Elyoseph et al. (2023), ChatGPT achieved significantly higher scores than the human comparison group and even improved its results in a second test conducted one month later(15). In addition, PsychoBench, introduced in 2024, offers a test framework with 13 psychometric scales, including empathy and emotional intelligence tests, which can be used for direct comparison of different AI models(16).

In addition to these scales, more complex evaluation frameworks have recently been used that analyze dialogue sequences in real time and compare them with codes from motivational interviewing (MTI) research. These methods enable a more precise assessment of the extent to which AI systems not only provide empathetic-sounding formulations but also perform empathetic acts during the conversation. Nevertheless, the central methodological challenge remains: empathy in AI is always a display, a recognizable pattern that evokes the impression of empathy in the other person without any underlying emotional state.

State of research

The scientific debate on the empathy of LLMs has gained considerable momentum since 2023.

One of the earliest studies to test AI in the field of emotional awareness, as mentioned above, was conducted by Elyoseph et al. (2023)(17). Using the Levels of Emotional Awareness Scale (LEAS), the authors compared ChatGPT’s performance with norm values from the general population. ChatGPT achieved significantly higher scores and even improved between two test dates within a month.

For mediation, this suggests that LLMs are able to differentiate between emotional states and name them precisely in language – a skill that can be particularly valuable in the problem exploration phase.

• A Harvard University/University of Graz study by Li, Herderich, and Goldenberg (2024)(18) examined the ability of GPT-4 and human subjects to cognitively reevaluate (“reframe” in communication science) negative situations. GPT-4 outperformed human controls in three out of four evaluation domains, even when humans were offered financial incentives for better performance. This suggests that AI can be used for reframing tasks.

• Cuadra et al. (2024)(19) coined the term “illusion of empathy” to describe how LLMs often generate linguistic warmth but perform less well in the dimensions of interpretation and exploration. A systematic comparison showed that AI statements appeared empathetic in the initial contact, but were less substantive in more in-depth conversation phases.

• Schlegel et al. (2025 )(20) tested LLMs and humans using standardized “emotional intelligence tests.” The study shows that current large language models (including GPT-4) performed significantly better than average human test subjects in standardized emotional intelligence tests, including recognizing, understanding, and appropriately regulating emotions. GPT-4 was also able to create realistic and versatile new test tasks that largely matched human-developed tests in terms of difficulty, clarity, and real-world relevance.

These results suggest that modern AI models possess a high degree of “cognitive empathy” i.e., they demonstrate precise knowledge of emotions and their regulation—a key prerequisite for acting convincingly in empathy-related contexts such as mediation, counseling, or customer service.

• Huang et al. (2024)(21) presented with PsychoBench, a concept comprising 13 psychometric tests, including empathy tests. It enables direct model comparisons and can be used for both research and practical testing. For mediation, this opens up the possibility of systematically testing AI assistants for empathy and communication skills before they are deployed.

• Juquelier et al. (2025)(22) investigated in three experiments how empathic chatbots influence perceived social presence and the quality of information. Under normal conditions, empathic formulations increased user satisfaction. Under time pressure, however, the effect was reversed – participants found the empathy distracting.

• A study by Chen et al. (2026)(23) on intercultural empathy found that conscious AI dialogue increased empathy scores among US participants, but not among Latin American participants. This suggests that empathic communication is culturally influenced and requires special attention in internationally diverse mediation groups.

• Mei et al. (2024)24 tested GPT-4 in classic economic behavior games (ultimatum, trust, prisoner’s dilemma, and public goods games) and found that the model often behaved more cooperatively and altruistically than the average human comparison group.

Benefits for mediation work?

The latest research findings indicate that LLMs can already provide useful support in several areas of mediation-related work. The aim is not to replace human mediators, but to expand their tools and skills. Key areas of application are presented below.

Support in preparing for discussions

AI can be used prior to the actual mediation (pre-mediation) to structure conflict histories and identify core emotional issues. Here, LLMs use their ability to differentiate between emotions, as demonstrated in the LEAS study by Elyoseph et al. (2023). By analyzing written preliminary discussions or emails, potential points of escalation can be identified, which facilitates the mediator’s preparation.

Reframing

The above-average performance of GPT-4 in cognitive reappraisal (reframing) documented by Li, Herderich, and Goldenberg (2024) suggests that AI can be used specifically as a reframing assistant. In practice, this means that a mediator can enter the parties’ statements into the system anonymously during preparation or, with the consent of both parties, during a session in order to obtain alternative, less confrontational expressions. This can help to break down barriers to communication or defuse ambiguous statements.

Proposal generation

In the options phase of mediation, LLMs can be used to generate solution-oriented proposals. The results of the behavioral game study by Mei et al. (2024) show that GPT-4 tends to act more altruistically in cooperative scenarios than the average value of human comparison groups. This can be used in mediation-like settings to show the parties options that build on common interests.

Co-moderator in ODR

In ODR formats where the mediator/moderator and parties are not physically present, AI can act as a structuring co-moderator. It can summarize conversation logs in real time, highlight key statements, and remind participants of open issues. Pilot projects such as the study “Robots in the Middle”25 prove that GPT-4 can provide impetus for de-escalating interventions in simulated online mediation scenarios.

The high scores achieved by LLMs in emotional intelligence tests (Schlegel et al., 2025) and psychometric benchmarks (Huang et al., 2024) also open up new possibilities in mediator training. AI can serve as a feedback system that shows prospective mediators which of their statements come across as empathetic and where there is potential for more precise or differentiated wording.

Limitations and risks

As promising as the results of recent research on the empathy capabilities of AI systems may seem, it is essential for mediation practice to clearly identify the existing weaknesses, dangers, and ethical issues of this technology. The following points show that the use of empathic AI in mediation carries considerable risks without careful design and human supervision.

The distinction introduced by Cuadra et al. (2024) between emotional reactions on the one hand and the more profound mechanisms of interpretation and exploration on the other, illustrates that LLMs often show deficits in the latter. In mediation, this can lead to parties feeling understood without any new perspectives or solutions actually being developed – a deceptive sense of progress.

Several studies show that AI systems can react differently in empathetic communication depending on the perceived identity of the other person26. In experiments with different demographic profiles, LLMs sometimes provided stereotypical or distorted responses. This is particularly problematic for mediation, where neutrality and impartiality are central principles. Undetected biases could not only undermine the trust of the parties, but also raise legal liability issues.

The study by Chen et al. (2026) on intercultural empathy shows that the effect of empathic communication depends heavily on cultural expectations. In international mediation settings, there is therefore a risk that an AI-generated “empathic” message may not only be ineffective in certain cultural circles, but may even be inappropriate.

The behavioral game study by Mei et al. (2024) shows that GPT-4 tends to favor cooperative and altruistic decisions. While this is desirable in many conflict situations, it can be problematic in others—for example, when an overly cooperative pattern leads to the premature watering down of legitimate but contentious positions held by one party. This phenomenon of “overly accommodating” AI can lead to one-sided dynamics.

The experiments conducted by Juquelier, Poncin, and Hazée (2025) illustrate that the benefits of empathetic communication depend on the situational context. Under time pressure or when the focus is highly task-oriented, a consistently “warm” tone can be perceived as disruptive or artificial. AI systems that do not adaptively take the context of the conversation into account therefore risk producing counterproductive effects. The use of empathetic AI in highly sensitive processes such as mediation is subject to strict legal requirements.

Ethical and social implications

The integration of empathetic AI systems into mediation work raises profound ethical and social issues. These relate in particular to trust in the process, confidentiality, protection against discrimination, and the professional and liability responsibilities of the mediators involved.

Trust is not only a necessary framework condition in mediation, but also a process goal in itself. The integration of AI can both strengthen and undermine this trust. Studies show that participants perceive AI-generated communication as high quality, but rate it as less empathetic once it becomes clear that it does not originate from a human being. In this area of tension, mediators must balance the duty of transparency with the risk of “self-devaluation” of the empathetic effect. The principle of informed consent suggests that parties must be clearly informed in advance about the use of AI.

In mediation, confidentiality is a central principle that is often contractually or legally protected. The use of cloud-based LLMs raises questions here about data transfer to third countries and purpose limitation. Even if the content of conversations is not stored directly, the processing of sensitive data in training or fine-tuning processes may violate law. 

Like all high-risk AI applications, empathetic AI must comply with requirements to prevent discriminatory effects. This includes both avoiding bias in the training data and implementing mechanisms that detect and block unfair or stereotypical statements. This is particularly relevant in mediation-related procedures, as unbalanced interventions can lead to de facto partisanship, thereby compromising the requirement of neutrality.

The use of AI does not release the mediator from his responsibility. If one party claims that AI intervention contributed to an unfavorable or unbalanced outcome, this could have consequences under liability law.

In the long term, the question arises as to whether increased use of empathetic AI could lead to an erosion of human empathy. While some researchers argue that AI-supported training can even improve mediators’ empathic abilities, others warn against a “delegation of competence” in which the constant outsourcing of certain conversational functions leads to an impoverishment of social interaction skills. This debate touches on the core of mediation’s social role as a human-centered process.

Outlook

Previous research findings suggest that AI systems capable of empathy will play an increasingly important role in mediation-related processes in the coming years. However, the development will not move toward completely replacing human mediators, but rather toward hybrid models in which humans and machines work together in a complementary manner.

Despite numerous studies, there are still significant gaps in research:

Long-term effects: Previous studies have mainly been cross-sectional. There is a lack of reliable data on how the use of empathetic AI affects the course and sustainability of conflict resolution in the long term.

Cultural diversity: As Chen et al. (2026) have shown, the effect of empathetic AI varies across cultures. Targeted intercultural research designs are needed to understand what adjustments are necessary for multinational mediation settings.

Intermodality: Most tests are based on text interaction. Studies on multimodal systems that incorporate language, gestures, and facial expressions are rare, even though nonverbal signals are central to empathy.

Bias detection and correction: Initial methods for bias detection exist, but there are no standardized benchmarks specifically tailored to mediation-relevant conversation contexts.

Three possible scenarios are emerging:

Assistance mode: AI systems serve as analysis and formulation aids without directly intervening in the dialogue. Mediators use them to prepare for conversations, for documentation, and as a reframing tool.

Co-mediator mode: AI acts as an additional conversation partner, taking on structuring tasks and providing empathetic interventions in real time, but remaining clearly recognizable as AI.

Autonomous mode: Complete execution of simple, standardized mediation procedures by AI, for example in high-volume ODR platforms. This scenario raises significant ethical and legal questions.

In the medium term, a hybrid model is most likely, in which AI takes over certain sub-functions while humans retain responsibility for the process. In this setting, LLMs could, for example, identify key emotional issues, offer suggestions for alternative formulations, or control culturally and contextually sensitive levels of empathy. The human mediator would evaluate and adapt these inputs and embed them in the overall framework of the process. 

Two developments are crucial for the sustainable and responsible use of empathetic AI in mediation: + Professionalization: Mediators must acquire skills in using AI tools, including the ability to leverage their strengths and identify risks.

Regulation: National and international professional associations should develop practice-oriented guidelines that set both technical and ethical standards. The EU AI Act provides a framework for this, but it still needs to be spelled out for the specific requirements of mediation.

Empathy in mediation is more than a communication technique—it is an attitude based on genuine understanding, impartiality, and the protection of a safe space for dialogue. LLMs can now simulate individual facets of this skill with astonishing conviction, providing mediators with valuable input – whether in analyzing conflict dynamics, reframing, or developing solution-oriented proposals.

However, empathy in AI always remains a projection: a linguistically generated pattern that conveys the impression of empathy without actual experience. This difference is not only a theoretical but also a practical anchor point for responsible use. Hybrid models in which humans and machines combine their respective strengths offer the greatest opportunities – provided they are supported by clear ethical guidelines, transparent processes, and trained specialists. The true value of empathetic AI will not be measured by whether it replaces humans, but by whether it enables them to use empathy more effectively, reflectively, and inclusively. In this sense, AI cannot be the “center” of mediation, but rather an amplifier for what remains at its core: a deeply human space for dialogue.

www.MichaelLardy.com

mail@MichaelLardy.com

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael–lardy–019394213/

Bibliography

1. Meinhart, S. (2015). Empathy in Mediation. AV-Akademikerverlag.

2. Schlegel, K. et al. (2025): Large language models are proficient in solving and creating emotional intelligence tests. Communications Psychology, (2025)3:80, DOI:10.1038/s44271-025-00258-x.

3. Menkel-Meadow, C. (2018): Mediation – Theory, Policy and Practice.

4. Elyoseph, Z. et al. (2023): ChatGPT outperforms humans in emotional awareness evaluations. Frontiers in Psychology.

5. Cuadra, C. et al. (2024): The Illusion of Empathy? Notes on Displays of Emotion in Human-Computer Interaction.

6. Altmann, Empathy. https://www.socialnet.de/lexikon/Empathie (Retrieved on: 14.8.2025).

7. Boeger, A., & Lüdmann, M. (2022). Empathy. In Psychology for Health Sciences. Springer.

8. Davis, M. H. (1994): Empathy – A social psychological approach.

9. Singer, T., & Klimecki, O. M. (2014): Empathy and compassion.

10. Moore, C. W. (2014): The Mediation Process.

11. Menkel-Meadow, C. (2018): Mediation – Theory, Policy and Practice.

12. Sharma, A. et al. (2020): A computational approach to understanding empathy expressed in text-based mental health support.

13. Cuadra, C. et al. (2024): The Illusion of Empathy? Notes on Displays of Emotion in Human-Computer Interaction. 14 Lane, R. D. et al. (1990): The Levels of Emotional Awareness Scale: A cognitive-developmental measure of emotion.

14. Elyoseph, Z. et al. (2023): ChatGPT outperforms humans in emotional awareness evaluations. Frontiers in Psychology.

15. Huang, J. et al. (2024): WHO is ChatGPT? Benchmarking LLMs psychological portrayal using Psychobench. 17 Elyoseph, Z. et al. (2023): ChatGPT outperforms humans in emotional awareness evaluations. Frontiers in Psychology.

16. Li, J., Herderich, K., & Goldenberg, A. (2024): Cognitive Reappraisal with AI Assistance. Harvard University & University of Graz Working Paper.

17. Cuadra, C. et al. (2024): The Illusion of Empathy? Notes on Displays of Emotion in Human-Computer Interaction. 20 Schlegel, K. et al. (2025): Large language models are proficient in solving and creating emotional intelligence tests. Communications Psychology, (2025)3:80, DOI:10.1038/s44271-025-00258-x.

18. Huang, J. et al. (2024): WHO is ChatGPT? Benchmarking LLMs psychological portrayal using Psychobench.

19. Juquelier, A. et al. (2025): Empathic chatbots: a double-edged sword in customer experiences.

20. Chen et al. (2026): AI as a deliberative partner fosters intercultural empathy for Americans but fails for Latin American participants.  

21. Mei et al. (2024): A Turing test of whether AI chatbots are behaviorally similar to humans.

22. Westermann et al. (2024): Robots in the middle: evaluating LLMs in dispute resolution.

23. Buolamwini, J. & Gebru, T. (2018): Gender Shades: Intersectional Accuracy Disparities in Commercial Gender Classification.

Michael Lardy: As a mediator in Salzburg, I offer professional mediation, dispute resolution and conflict resolution,
specializing in family mediation, divorce mediation and business mediation.

Beyond the Horn: What Road Rage Reveals About the Terrain of the Body

By John Ford

When another driver cuts you off, something primal awakens. Your pulse races, your muscles tighten, a surge of heat moves up from your chest. In an instant, the car becomes a battlefield — you versus them.

Public safety experts have long warned that anger behind the wheel is one of the leading causes of preventable crashes. The advice is familiar: stay calm, avoid escalation, and drive defensively. Yet this also opens a deeper question: why do ordinary people lose control so completely when driving?

The Paradox of Road Rage

In his documentary The Human Face, John Cleese asks a provocative question:

“Why don’t we get pedestrian rage?”

When someone bumps into us on the sidewalk, we might mutter or frown, but rarely explode. Cleese suggests this is because we can see the other person’s face — we recognize intention, embarrassment, apology. Those micro-expressions regulate our nervous system.

Inside a car, we lose that human feedback loop. The other driver becomes a faceless object, not a person. Our nervous system, deprived of relational data, fills in the blanks with threat. A small frustration becomes a story of injustice — and our physiology follows suit.

Dysregulation: When the Terrain Is Too Dry to Absorb the Spark

Driving doesn’t just test patience; it reveals the condition of your inner terrain.
How we respond on the road often says less about what happened and more about what state we were already in when it did.

A full-blown trigger points to unfinished business from the past—those moments when something today echoes something unresolved from yesterday. That kind of work requires deeper integration and is best met with care and curiosity when you have capacity.

But most of what we experience behind the wheel isn’t a trigger in that sense.
It’s dysregulation—your body’s immediate cry for help when the nervous system is taxed. You’re tired, hungry, overloaded, or stretched thin. Your window of tolerance narrows, and even small frustrations land like attacks.

The same event—a honk, a slow merge, a sudden brake—can feel entirely different depending on your state of regulation:

• On a resourced day: Someone cuts you off. You feel a flash of irritation, breathe, and let it pass.

• On a depleted day: The same incident hits like a punch. Your grip tightens, breath shortens, and anger surges. You’re not reacting to the event itself so much as to your body’s inability to absorb it.

Your condition didn’t cause the moment—it amplified it.
A dry field ignites easily; a well-watered one resists flame.
That is the physiology of dysregulation.

Recognizing this distinction matters because it changes what’s needed. When you’re triggered, you may eventually want to explore the deeper story. When you’re dysregulated, the work is simpler and more immediate:

·       Pause.

·       Notice what your body is saying.

·       You don’t need to analyze or fix it.

·       Just acknowledge: I’m activated. Then, when you can, bring attention back to your breath — a tool we’ll return to shortly.

You’re not “working on your trauma.” You’re refueling the nervous system that keeps you safe on the road and steady in your life.
And that simple tending—moment by moment—is often what keeps a spark from becoming a dangerous wildfire.

The Terrain of the Body

Your body is not a neutral container; it’s living terrain.
Sleep, nutrition, hydration, connection — these are not luxuries. They’re what determine whether a stressful moment becomes an opportunity for awareness or a flashpoint for harm.

When dysregulated, we don’t just risk lashing out. We risk everything.
Every year, people lose their lives — and take the lives of loved ones — in moments of blind, reactive rage on the road. These aren’t “bad people.” They’re nervous systems overwhelmed beyond capacity, grasping for control in the most dangerous way possible.

Recognizing this reality doesn’t excuse road rage — it humanizes it. And that humanization is what makes real change possible.

The Car as a Practice Ground for Regulation

In my forthcoming book Tracking Triggers, I describe how ordinary moments can become extraordinary teachers. Few environments reveal our nervous system as quickly as the road. Every brake light, every delay, every act of impatience from another driver becomes feedback — not about them, but about the condition of our own terrain.

The car, then, is not just a vehicle for transport. It’s a practice ground for presence — a moving mirror for emotional regulation.

When you notice activation rising, ask:

“Is this about now, or about then?”
“Am I triggered, or simply dysregulated?”

This moment of inquiry is your first act of regulation. You don’t need to “fix” anything — just notice. Awareness itself is the turn of the wheel that brings you back toward center.

From that awareness, you can begin to work with the tools that restore steadiness. What follows are five simple ways to transform your car — and your commute — into a laboratory for calm.

Five Ways to Regulate Rather Than Rage

1. Pause and Breathe Before Reacting

When irritation strikes, your breath is the first and most powerful intervention.
Let the steering wheel become your feedback tool.

Pause and notice your grip — how tight are your hands?
Soften slightly. Then take a deep, slow inhalation through your nose.
Let your belly rise and your back press gently into the seat.
Exhale slowly, feeling your shoulders drop and your hands relax.

Each breath widens the space between stimulus and response — the difference between reacting and regulating.

2. Assume a Story You Don’t Know

The person who cut you off might be rushing to the hospital, lost in thought, or distracted by grief. Remember: offense is often not intended. As the saying goes, “Offense is 90% taken, 10% given.”

By assuming possibility rather than hostility, you shift your nervous system from threat to curiosity. You can’t control their driving, but you can control the story you tell yourself about it.

3. Reframe the Moment

Instead of, “They disrespected me,” try, “They were trying to meet their own valid needs.”
It doesn’t excuse poor driving; it restores your power to stay centered.
When you see behavior as an expression of need rather than malice, your body stops producing fuel for war.

4. Use the Vehicle as a Centering Space

Play calming music. Unclench your jaw. Relax your hands.
Keep your attention on what you can control — your breath, your distance, your awareness.

Your car becomes a moving calming gym rather than a vessel of battle.
This shift alone transforms traffic from an adversary into a daily practice field for presence.

5. Reflect After the Drive

When the engine turns off, take a brief inventory:

• What emotion arose?

• What need was underneath?

• What might I do differently next time?

Each drive becomes a short lesson in emotional literacy — a way to track how your inner landscape meets the outer world.

From the Road to Real Life

The way we drive mirrors the way we live. If we speed, withdraw, or retaliate in traffic, we likely do the same in conversation. But the car gives us immediate feedback: every red light, every close call, every wave (or lack of one) is an invitation to practice.

Breathing through frustration in traffic trains the same muscles of presence that serve us in meetings, conflicts, and family life. The practice is portable. The gift is cumulative.

Conclusion: Awareness Is the Real Airbag

The true antidote to road rage isn’t suppression — it’s self-awareness.

Every drive offers a choice: to contract into story or to expand into presence.
When we pause, breathe, and feel the grip of the wheel soften beneath our palms, we remind the body that it is safe — and in doing so, we keep everyone else safe too.

Acknowledgment:
This reflection was inspired in part by “Understanding Road Rage: How to Manage Your Own Emotions on the Road and Deal With Others,” published by Sieben Polk Law P.A.. Their public-safety insights provided the spark for this deeper exploration into emotional awareness behind the wheel.

Empathy and the Art of Tracking: Following the Trail of Another’s Experience

By John Ford

Imagine you are standing in the Kalahari Desert. Before you is a vast expanse of sand, rock, and scrub. There are no animals in sight. And yet, a San tracker beside you kneels, studies the ground, and says, “It passed through here... early this morning... it’s wounded... and moving slowly.”

To the untrained eye, there’s nothing to see. But to the practiced tracker, the land is full of information. Every faint indentation, every shift in texture or shadow, tells a story.

In The Art of Tracking: The Origin of Science, South African author and tracker Louis Liebenberg explores this remarkable ability. He spent years in the field with Indigenous San trackers, not only learning their techniques, but asking a deeper question:
What kind of thinking makes tracking possible?

His answer: tracking is not just a survival skill—it’s an early form of scientific reasoning. Long before there were laboratories and peer review, there were people interpreting scattered evidence, forming hypotheses, testing ideas against nature, and refining their understanding through direct experience.

Liebenberg distinguishes between two primary ways that trackers work: systematic tracking and speculative tracking.

Systematic Tracking: The Art of Seeing What’s There

Systematic tracking involves following clear, visible signs. A hoofprint. A bent twig. A patch of flattened grass. These clues are straightforward and sensory-based. They rely on genuine perception—a form of presence that requires the tracker to be acutely tuned into their environment.

This mode is not passive observation. It demands discipline. The tracker must notice what others overlook, differentiate between noise and signal, and remember patterns learned over time. Their attention is precise, embodied, and relational. They are not just looking at the land—they are in dialogue with it.

Speculative Tracking: The Imagination Enters the Picture

But what happens when the ground hardens, or the wind covers the trail? When the spoor becomes faint, broken, or disappears altogether?

This is where speculative tracking begins. Now the tracker must imagine the animal’s movements—based on what they know of its habits, behavior, and recent direction. They must reconstruct the likely scenario: If it was limping, it wouldn’t take that incline. If it’s wounded, it may move toward water. If it sensed danger, it might double back.

Speculative tracking is not guesswork—it’s structured imagination. It’s the mind projecting possibilities, then returning to the ground to test them. It’s the dance between what’s seen and what’s sensed.

This is where Liebenberg makes his bold claim: that this type of thinking—speculative, evidence-based, and imaginative—is the origin of scientific thought. In essence, tracking is a primal form of inquiry.

From the Desert to the Heart: Empathy as Inner Tracking

When we consider the work of empathy, we find an almost uncanny parallel.

Empathy, too, begins with genuine perception. We listen for what someone says—and doesn’t say. We notice their posture, their tone, their pace of speech. We attend to their presence. Just like the tracker reading the land, we read the emotional terrain of another person.

And yet, this only gets us so far. Like tracking, empathy often reaches a point where the trail fades.

The person may not know what they’re feeling. Or they may not say it clearly. Or they may say one thing while their body says another. At this moment, deep imagination must enter. We begin to ask:

• What might be going on beneath that anger?

• What kind of pain is hiding in that silence?

• What would I be feeling if I were in that situation?

We are not guessing. We are using everything we have perceived to construct a meaningful, respectful hypothesis. And then we test it—not with certainty, but with care. “Are you feeling overwhelmed... maybe needing some space?” The empathic response becomes an offering. A breadcrumb on the trail.

The Emergence of Intuition: Embodied Knowing

Some trackers, after years of practice, develop what appears to be intuition. They look across a landscape and just know where the animal is heading. This isn’t magic. It’s the result of years of integrating perception and imagination until the process becomes fluid, embodied, and largely unconscious.

The same can happen with empathy. Experienced listeners seem to “feel into” someone’s experience almost instantly. But beneath this apparent intuition lies a foundation of deep attunement, thousands of emotional conversations, and a cultivated willingness to stay present with uncertainty.

What we call intuition, in both tracking and empathy, may simply be the seamless convergence of perception and imagination.

Why This Matters

In a world full of noise and conflict, the ability to track the emotional landscape of others is no small thing. Whether in relationships, leadership, parenting, or friendship, empathy allows us to follow subtle trails—to listen not just to words, but to needs. Not just to behaviors, but to longings.

Louis Liebenberg reminds us that tracking is an ancient human inheritance. I’d argue the same is true for empathy.

Both begin with attention. Both rely on imagination. Both lead us beyond what is visible into what is deeply human.

And both, ultimately, invite us to walk alongside others—not with certainty, but with presence, humility, and care.

When Empathy is Rejected: Staying Open Without Losing Yourself

By John Ford

Reaching out to a loved one in times of political and emotional division is an act of vulnerability. It takes courage to invite someone into a space of mutual understanding, especially when that invitation is met with resistance—or worse, dismissal.

What do you do when you extend a hand in empathy, only to have it brushed aside? How do you stay open without feeling crushed? How do you care for yourself while holding onto hope for connection?

The Pain of Being Rebuffed

When you reach out with sincerity, hoping to be heard, and instead receive a response that dismisses your feelings or minimizes your concerns, it can feel like a gut punch. You weren’t looking for a debate. You weren’t asking for agreement. You were asking to be seen. And instead, you were told to "chill."

Responses like these often reveal a fundamental disconnect:

• You sought emotional connection; they responded with logic or indifference.

• You wanted acknowledgment of your distress; they reassured you that everything is fine.

• You were asking for empathy; they heard it as an argument.

This gap in perception is frustrating, and it can feel deeply lonely—especially when it comes from someone you love.

Why Might They Respond This Way?

When someone resists engaging empathetically, it’s often not because they don’t care, but because they feel unequipped, uninterested, or even threatened. Consider these possibilities:

• They see emotions as irrational. Some people, consciously or unconsciously, equate emotional distress with weakness or overreaction. Instead of sitting with discomfort, they push it away.

• They fear conflict. A deep conversation may feel too risky or too exhausting, especially if they think it could lead to more division.

• They believe that acknowledging your pain means they have to change their own views. Rather than listening as an act of care, they assume you are trying to persuade them, and they put up defenses.

• They genuinely don’t feel the same way and don’t understand why it affects you so deeply. And instead of trying to understand, they dismiss.

None of these are excuses, but understanding them can help soften the sting.

What You Can Do Instead of Giving Up

So where do you go from here? How do you stay open when your invitation to empathy is rejected?

1. Acknowledge the Disconnect

If you sense that they are misunderstanding your intent, you can gently name the gap:

"I hear that you don’t feel the same way I do, and that’s okay. But I wasn’t looking for a debate. I was hoping for empathy—not about policies, but about what this moment means to me and how it’s affecting me personally. That’s what I need from you and why I suggested an empathy circle."

This clarifies that you’re not trying to argue— you’re trying to connect.

2. Name Your Emotional Need Directly

Some people won’t intuit what you’re asking for, so say it clearly:

"When I share my fears and grief, I need to feel that you care about my experience—not that you agree with me, but that you care that I’m struggling."

This removes any question about your agenda. You’re not asking for validation of your political views; you’re asking for relational care.

3. Decide Whether to Keep Engaging or Step Back

If their response remains dismissive or defensive, it may not be the right time for this conversation. You can signal your boundaries while keeping the door open:

"I love you, but I don’t think we’re in the same place right now. Maybe we can just focus on what connects us today."

This protects your energy without completely shutting them out.

Taking Care of Yourself When Connection Fails

When a loved one doesn’t meet you in the space of empathy, it’s painful. But your well-being doesn’t have to depend on their ability to hold space for you. Here’s how to take care of yourself:

1. Seek Empathy Elsewhere

Not everyone is capable of offering the emotional support we long for, but that doesn’t mean you have to go without it. Who in your life can hold space for you? A friend, a partner, a therapist, a community?

2. Set a Personal Boundary

You don’t have to engage in conversations that leave you feeling dismissed or drained. Protect your energy by recognizing when to step away.

"I love you, but I need to step away from this conversation for now. It hurts to feel dismissed when I’m sharing something deeply personal."

3. Stay Open Without Staying Vulnerable to Harm

Holding onto empathy doesn’t mean allowing yourself to be repeatedly hurt. You can continue to care about your loved one without expecting them to meet your emotional needs.

If they aren’t willing to meet you in understanding, consider shifting your focus:

• Can you find a different way to connect that isn’t emotionally charged?

• Can you accept that they might not have the capacity for deep emotional exchange?

• Can you practice radical acceptance while maintaining self-protection?

An Invitation to Keep Choosing Empathy

Empathy is an act of courage. It’s risky because it asks us to open our hearts without a guarantee that we will be met in kind. Sometimes, we will be met with love and understanding. Other times, we won’t.

But staying open—to connection, to curiosity, to love—is always worth it. Not because the other person will always reciprocate, but because choosing empathy makes you more whole.

So if you’ve reached out and been met with rejection, hold steady. Breathe. Find the care you need elsewhere. And when the time is right, keep your heart open to the possibility of understanding—if not today, then maybe tomorrow.

Empathy Circles: A Path to Understanding in Times of Political Division

By John Ford,

In times of deep political and social division, it can feel impossible to have meaningful conversations with those we love. Tensions rise, words become weapons, and the very people we cherish can feel like adversaries. But what if there were another way? A way to speak and listen—not to convince or debate, but to truly understand?

This is where Empathy Circles, a practice championed by Edwin Rutsch, offer a powerful alternative.

What Is an Empathy Circle?

An Empathy Circle is a structured process designed to help people listen deeply and feel heard. Unlike debates, where the goal is to win, or even ordinary conversations, where we often listen just long enough to craft our response, empathy circles slow us down. They create a space where we can sit with our differences without trying to erase them.

At its core, the process is simple:

1. One person speaks while another person listens.

2. The listener reflects back what they heard, without judgment or analysis.

3. The speaker confirms whether they feel heard.

4. The roles rotate, ensuring that everyone gets a chance to share and be understood.

By structuring the conversation this way, empathy circles prevent interruptions, misunderstandings, and the escalation of conflict. Instead, they cultivate curiosity, patience, and connection.

Why This Matters Now

We live in a world that thrives on division. Social media amplifies outrage, news cycles stoke fear, and political rhetoric encourages us to see “the other side” as the enemy. But for most of us, division isn’t just theoretical—it’s personal. It’s at our family gatherings, in our friendships, and even in our closest relationships.

The good news? We don’t have to accept this state of affairs. We can choose to engage differently. We can choose empathy.

A Prayer for Understanding: An Empathy Circle in Action

Sometimes, reaching out can feel like an act of faith. When emotions run high, when we feel wounded or misunderstood, it takes courage to choose connection over disconnection. The message below—adapted from a real conversation—offers one way to invite a loved one into a different kind of dialogue:

I’ve been reflecting on how easy it is, when we feel hurt or misunderstood, to close off, to push back, to want to wound rather than open. But I don’t want that for us. I want something deeper—something that makes space for both of us to be heard, to listen, and to understand.

I know the impulse to pull away, to let anger or fear take the lead. But I also know that when we slow down, when we truly listen, something shifts. Even in disagreement, even in pain, love can be present—not to erase our differences, but to hold them with care.

As we find ourselves struggling to connect, I’d love for us to try something different—something like an empathy circle, where we take turns speaking, reflect back what we hear, and make sure we truly understand before responding. Not to convince, not to win—just to see each other. Because we all matter.

An Invitation

Imagine if, instead of arguing past each other, more families tried this approach. Imagine if, instead of reacting with anger or silence, we responded with curiosity and presence.

Empathy Circles aren’t just a technique; they’re a mindset—a way of approaching difficult conversations with an open heart. They remind us that we are more than our opinions, that beneath our disagreements are shared fears, hopes, and a longing for connection.

So if there’s a conversation you’ve been avoiding, a relationship that feels strained, or a loved one you don’t know how to reach—consider this an invitation. Try an empathy circle. Step into the discomfort with love. And see what happens when you truly listen.

In a world that encourages us to fight or flee, empathy offers a third path: the path of understanding. And in times like these, it may be the most radical choice of all.

Resonant vs. Discordant Leadership: Navigating the Balance Between Connection and Accountability

By John Ford

“Leaders must step in to resolve task and process issues when employees can't manage them independently. They can’t afford to turn a blind eye when they notice things going off track.”

This statement captures a core challenge of leadership today. It’s no longer just about meeting deadlines or hitting targets; modern leadership requires understanding and managing the emotional landscape of a team. Leaders who prioritize being agreeable or playing "Mr. Nice" may find that, over time, standards slip and problems grow. Yet, those who step in to address issues often risk being labeled as micromanagers, viewed as overbearing or overly controlling.

It’s a tricky balance to maintain, and many leaders feel stuck between these two extremes, unsure how to strike the right note. However, mastering this balance is crucial, as successful leadership lies in fostering a culture of trust and collaboration without compromising on accountability. The best leaders navigate this challenge with skill, creating environments where issues are addressed constructively, and team members feel both supported and empowered.

The Challenge of Looking the Other Way

Choosing to look the other way to maintain harmony is a common yet risky move. Leaders who avoid conflict may think they are preserving team morale, but the consequences can be severe. Emotional dissonance starts to spread, and signs of a dysfunctional team emerge:

1. Grimaces and Anger: When frustrations go unaddressed, they manifest as tension and negativity, often impacting the whole team.

2. Fear and Apathy: Inconsistencies in enforcing standards lead to a culture of uncertainty and disengagement, where employees feel disconnected from their work.

3. Sullen Silence and Cynicism: Over time, the silence of unresolved issues becomes a breeding ground for cynicism and passive resistance.

4. Doubt and Insincerity: When leaders aren’t transparent or consistent, employees start doubting their sincerity, undermining trust.

5. Resentment and Contempt: The workplace becomes toxic, filled with unresolved grievances and growing discontent.

When leaders avoid taking action, hoping things improve on their own, they often achieve the opposite. The dissonance spreads, standards decline, and the overall team culture suffers.

The Perils of Being Seen as a Micromanager

Yet, addressing issues head-on brings its own set of challenges. Leaders who speak up and hold people accountable may be perceived as micromanagers, which can alienate their team. This is the fine line leaders must walk: How do you enforce high standards without making your team feel controlled or untrusted?

This tension leaves many leaders feeling stuck, unsure of how to proceed. The fear of being viewed as a threat can be paralyzing. But the best leaders find a way to navigate this delicate balance. They don’t compromise on emotional connection, nor do they shy away from setting expectations. Instead, they become masters of communication and empathy.

The Power of Resonant Leadership

The key to resolving this dilemma lies in resonant leadership. Resonant leaders understand the emotional currents running through their teams and use this awareness to address problems constructively. Here’s what effective resonance looks like:

1. Smiles and Laughter: These are indicators of a workplace where people feel genuinely happy and connected. Leaders who foster joy and warmth create a positive and engaging culture.

2. Spirited and Delightful Energy: When employees feel inspired and motivated, it’s because leaders have aligned the work environment with people’s passions and strengths.

3. Confidence and Trust: Resonant leaders build trust by being authentic, transparent, and consistent. They don’t shy away from tough conversations but handle them with empathy and respect.

4. Engagement and Commitment: Employees are most engaged when they feel that their work has meaning and that their leader is invested in their growth.

These leaders do address deviations from expected standards, but they do so in a way that feels supportive rather than punitive. By framing feedback constructively and being genuinely invested in their employees' success, they avoid being perceived as micromanagers. Instead, they become seen as reliable and empowering.

Navigating the Balance: Practical Strategies

So, how do you become a resonant leader? It starts with developing emotional intelligence and using tools like The Empathy Set to better understand your team’s needs. Here are a few strategies:

1. Stay Present and Aware: Regularly check in with your team to gauge the emotional atmosphere. Are smiles and laughter present, or is there a sullen silence? Use this awareness to inform your leadership decisions.

2. Address Issues Promptly, but Kindly: When you see a problem, don’t let it fester. However, approach it from a place of curiosity and empathy rather than judgment or control.

3. Be Transparent and Authentic: Share the reasons behind your decisions and show vulnerability where appropriate. This builds trust and shows that your actions come from a place of genuine care.

4. Frame Feedback as Growth: Instead of framing issues as failures, discuss them as opportunities for development. This way, your team sees you as a supportive guide rather than an enforcer.

Ultimately, resonant leaders know how to make tough decisions without compromising on emotional connection. They foster a culture of both high standards and deep trust, inspiring their teams to engage fully and deliver their best work.

Leadership is never simple, but by mastering the art of resonant leadership, you can transform your team’s dynamic and create lasting positive change.

How are you balancing the need for connection and accountability in your leadership role? Share your experiences and reflections below!

Empathy Steps

By Marshall Rosenberg, Ph. D.

From Getting Past the Pain Between Us: Healing and Reconciliation without Compromise

1

First, empathy requires presence, a focus on what is alive in the other person at this moment, on their feelings and needs.

2

Second, empathy requires checking things out with the other person, making sure you're connecting with their feelings and needs.

Each step mentioned so far can be done silently: being fully present, having your attention on the other person's feelings and needs. Or, we could check in verbally, reflect out loud what we sense the feelings and needs are.

3

The third step for empathizing is to stay with the person until they give you signs that they're finished.

4

The fourth step doesn't happen until the relief is felt. During the empathy process, if every time I understand something and they come back with, "Yes, and blah blah blah," that is a signal that they need more empathy. But when I feel this relief in tension, when I see that the person has stopped talking, chances are they've had the empathy they've need.

But I always like to triple check by saying to them, "Is there more that you'd like to say?" I've learned to be very slow in shifting the attention away from the other person to myself.

5

The fifth step, then, is to empathize with their "post-empathic" request, that something extra they want, but often don't know how to ask for. So if, after the empathy, I see them looking at me, I usually say, "Would you like to hear how I feel about what you said?" It's a very human thing to want to know how what you've given has affected the other person. Sometimes they do, and sometimes they don't want to hear how I feel.

What's the Difference Between Assertiveness and Aggressiveness?

By Jeremy Pollack, Pollack Peacebuilding Systems

Assertiveness is the ability to express your thoughts, needs, and opinions in a respectful and confident manner, while still considering other people’s perspectives. It is an essential quality for effective communication, conflict resolution, and building healthy relationships at work. But, it's crucial to differentiate between assertiveness and aggression.

Assertive individuals possess several key traits and behaviors that distinguish them in the workplace. These enable them to express their needs without resorting to aggression. Some of these behaviors and traits include: Confidence and Self-awareness, Active Listening Skills, Emotional Intelligence and Empathy, Calmness and Emotional Control, A Solution-Oriented Mindset, and setting boundaries in a respectful but clear way. These don’t sound aggressive, right? There’s no bullying, yelling, or manipulating.

Assertiveness is a healthy middle ground on the spectrum between avoidance and aggression. It’s the middle way, and ultimately the healthy way to communicate about your needs while considering other people’s needs as well.

This insightful short video on You Tube is worth watching!

Why Does Empathy Matter in Forgiveness?

By Emily J. Hooks

Empathy is the ability to walk a mile in another’s skin; to consider life from their perspective. It involves both an intellectual capacity to imagine and an emotional attunement to their experience. Empathy is an integral part of forgiving others and the self.

Forgiving Others

Let’s first look at why empathy matters when forgiving someone we perceive to have caused harm to us or somebody we love. For many, finding empathy for those who have hurt us is understandably difficult. No one wants to take the point of view of someone whom they resent or fear. Why would anyone want to envision the life of an abuser or a person whose values fundamentally differ from our own?

In The Power of Forgiveness, I talk about the skills we need to become forgiving.

• Understand Your Story

• Experience Your Emotional Pain

• Cultivate Empathy

• Learn to Release Judgment

It turns out that we can only get so far through the process without empathy. We can deconstruct and reimagine the stories we have about what happened; we can nurture and release our emotional pain; we can learn that our judgments stand in the way of freedom. But, it is almost impossible to fully release those judgments without an authentic appreciation for why the people who caused harm might have made the choices they made.

An important aspect of forgiving others involves allowing ourselves to open to the suffering of the other. To motivate willingness to do this, it is helpful to remember that you are not doing it for them. You are doing it for your liberation. The compassion that emerges can only open your heart to a more vibrant and full existence. And, while your forgiveness may or may not contribute to their healing, it is not and should not be your primary driver (or deterrent).

As you reflect on what this could look like for you, it can help to recognize that people who mistreat others are acting from, or reacting to, their own injury. And, while it can feel very personal, it is not. You were the unfortunate recipient of a transgression that was likely inevitable, with or without you.

Empathy and Self-forgiveness

It is theorized that human beings developed the capacity to empathize, at least in part, to enable us to anticipate the consequences of our conduct and the impact of that conduct on others. Essentially, it is a tool that provides insight into socially acceptable behaviors and the cost of violating social norms.

When individuals do something that hurts another person, they can react in several ways: indifference, minimization, guilt, shame. If the wrongdoer has the ability to empathize, they will be able to picture/feel the events that unfolded from other points of view. Even if they don’t evaluate what happened the same, they are more likely to feel bad for the impact and take corrective action. These conciliatory behaviors, in turn, ameliorate the guilt, making self-forgiveness more likely. Someone who cannot see circumstances from other vantage points has a much harder time recognizing either the need for self-forgiveness or a path forward through self-healing.

Why Empathy Is Challenging

People have varying aptitudes to empathize. But it is not, as popular culture might have you believe, a mystical ability. Some of us grew up in an environment where perspective-taking was valued, and others did not. In truth, almost anyone can quite quickly learn if they are willing.

One reason people vehemently resist empathy is good, old-fashioned annoyance.  It’s frustrating to think that part of finding our freedom demands that we extend any level of grace to those who seem responsible for suffering. This is why forgiveness is not a choice we make only once but a choice we have to make repeatedly along the journey. It may not be fair, but that doesn’t make it not so.

Another source of resistance is a lived or intuitive sense that opening to an empathic experience can be emotionally demanding. At first, it requires bravery to connect with the anguish of others intentionally. We have to choose what matters most and what we are willing to do to discover our true inner strength. Be patient and gentle and take the next step forward. I am in awe of the human capacity for courage when it matters most.

Exercise: Cultivating Empathy

Here’s an exercise to help demonstrate. Close your eyes and bring to your mind’s eye the image of someone utterly unlike you. Maybe they are standing on the side of the road, ruddy from the sun’s constant companionship, ragged and tired, begging for money from passersby. Or, maybe it is somebody you recently read about who committed an unthinkable crime. Take your time and visualize them in as much detail as you can.

Notice how your body responds to the imagery.

Now, ask yourself, what would have happened to cause you to be in that position? If you’re like most, your first thought will likely be an indignant, I would never; I can’t even… That’s cheating. Answer the question. What happened to you that led you to such profound despair?

Go back in time and imagine what living was like one year ago. Now five, ten. What were your parents like? Did they have to ability to demonstrate morality or fairness? Did they show you tenderness or even passing regard?

Now, visualize the person the day they were born. Are they different from your child or the child of a friend? Probably not. They had the same vulnerability, the same innate needs, and the same intrinsic curiosity and joy as we all do.

Check in with your body again and notice if/how your sensory experience has changed.

If you’re sincere and take your time, you will have embodied our common humanity—empathy—if only fleetingly. You will discover that we are all responding to life with the inner and outer resources available to us. We are doing the best we can to navigate our path through a sometimes seemingly senseless existence. What a gift you possess to have the awareness to choose healing and wholeness over suffering. That is not a gift we all receive.

Don’t be disheartened from starting the forgiveness journey if you feel confident you cannot develop empathy or compassion for the person you need to forgive. Most people can’t imagine being able to forgive at the beginning of the process. You can make significant progress regardless, and you may find when the time comes that it isn’t as unimaginable as it now seems.

When we elicit empathy for the sorrow that has shaped so many human experiences, we generate compassion for the shared human condition. Empathy makes the possibility of forgiving ourselves and others concrete because it broadens our perspective. When we empathize, we can see that, had we lived someone else’s life, we might have made the same choices as they have made. This is connection at the most fundamental level.

About Emily

I have spent the last decades focused on a healing journey centered on forgiveness. I studied spiritual and religious texts from around the globe. I studied psychological theory and practice. Most importantly, I forgave everyone who had ever caused me harm. I forgave myself for the pain I had caused.

Through this work, we can all find love, compassion, and empathy for others. It is possible to both mourn the loss of what was not and fully embrace what was, accepting that struggling against the past only causes more suffering. 

My first book, The Power of Forgiveness: A Guide to Healing and Wholeness, was published in 2017. Today, I share my story and a message of healing through forgiveness. One of my favorite things to do is facilitate workshops and seminars because I get to see that a-ha moment in peoples’ eyes. A lightbulb goes off, and they can finally see why they resisted their own healing for so long. 

I believe as we heal, the world heals. I believe our purpose is to contribute to the evolution of human understanding. We all matter.

https://emilyjhooks.com/about/

Empathic Listening 101

Empathy is a critical component of effective communication and building strong relationships. Listening empathically is a powerful tool that can help us connect with others on a deeper level, foster understanding, and reduce conflict. However, it's not always easy to listen empathically, as it requires us to set aside our own thoughts and opinions and be fully present in the conversation.

To listen empathically, the first step is to be present in the moment. This means putting aside any distractions, such as electronic devices, and focusing solely on the person who is speaking. It's also important to be attentive and alert, observing the speaker's tone of voice, body language, and facial expressions.

Once we have established a sense of presence, the next step is to follow the speaker's lead. This involves allowing them to guide the conversation, without interrupting or changing the subject. We must also avoid making assumptions about what the speaker is trying to say and instead allow them to express themselves fully.

Encouragement is also critical when listening empathically. We can do this by using open-ended questions to encourage the speaker to share more about their thoughts and feelings. Examples of such questions include "Can you tell me more about that?" or "What else comes to mind when you think about that?"

Empathizing is another key component of empathic listening. It involves acknowledging the speaker's emotions and validating their feelings. One way to do this is to reflect back what we hear using phrases like "It sounds like you're feeling frustrated" or "I can see why you would be upset about that." This helps the speaker feel heard and understood.

Clarification is also important in empathic listening. It involves asking questions to ensure that we understand what the speaker is saying accurately. This helps to avoid misunderstandings and allows us to gain a deeper understanding of the speaker's perspective.

Finally, summarizing what we have heard is an essential step in empathic listening. It demonstrates that we have understood the speaker's perspective, even if we do not agree with it. Using phrases like "So, if I understand correctly, you're saying..." or "It sounds like you feel..." can help to summarize the key points of the conversation.

While listening empathically can be challenging, the rewards are significant. It can help us build stronger relationships, promote understanding and reduce conflict. By following the steps outlined above, we can become better listeners and more empathetic communicators.

The Importance of Empathy

From LifeHacker (http://lifehacker.com/)

With an increasingly polarized and divided world, we need empathy more than ever before. Too often we are talking at each other, unable to listen and jumping to entirely wrong conclusions. Communication is fast becoming a stressful endeavor, which instead of connecting us, is increasing separation. So, what is empathy? We seem to have let go this most basic human characteristic. There are so many misconceptions around this simple and essential quality we seem to have forgotten. Learn more about empathy and how to develop it…

Some of the posts in relation to this video on You Tube:

Enrique Sanchez: “Empathy should be taught at every educational level because that's the key for living in harmony with the world. Empathy not only involves humans but also animals and every living creature and mother earth.”

Maureen O’Connell: “Empathy is, at its simplest, awareness of the feelings and emotions of other people. It is a key element of Emotional Intelligence, the link between self and others because it is how we as individuals understand what others are experiencing as if we were feeling it ourselves.”

BendingBananas: “Seriously, a lot of people could really use a good dosage of empathy. Imagine how much nicer everyone would be!“

Dakota Rose: “What a beautiful thing Empathy is. This video was great! Whoever made this did a good job creatively capturing the idea of empathy. Good work.”

What is Empathy?

NVC Lifehacks 51: Negotiating a time out

By Shantigarbha of Seeds of Peace,

In this Life Hack we explore ways of creating space for self-empathy when your emotional fuel tanks are low. We suggest practicing negotiating a time out with your loved ones so that they know what's going on before things get out of hand.

Seeds of Peace offer Nonviolent Communication training, courses, and events both online and in Bristol and the South West.

https://seedofpeace.org/

Empathy over the Phone

by Doug Wojcieszak,

I just completed a Sorry Works! training for a senior living community on the West Coast, and was asked a great question: "How do you convey empathy over the phone?

At Sorry Works, we spend a lot of time teaching empathetic communication skills to healthcare professionals, and the basic messaging includes good body language, using words like "sorry," listening, and then calling someone or putting a plan into action to address the needs of the patient or family.

Conveying empathy over the phone can be more challenging. Body language, eye contact, and appropriate touches (hand on arm, hugs, etc) are not possible. In-person meetings almost always beat phone calls, but phone calls can still be good. Think about it...for us older folks we know the value of talking over the phone versus the now popular methods of texting, messaging, and e-mail. You can absolutely connect with a person during a phone call. The human voice is powerful.

Some tips for difficult phone calls: When having a potentially challenging conversation on the phone, remember to take time. Don't sound rushed or give the caller the belief they are being hurried off the phone call. Give it a good five minutes, at least. Really take the time to listen, and since you don't have the advantage of body language occasionally interject small verbal cues such as "OK," "uh-huh," and "go on" to let the other person know you are listening. At some point you may stop the conversation with the following statement, "Mrs. Smith, I want to make sure I heard you correctly, so I am going to repeat what you said...X...X..X....did I hear you correctly?" Repeating words back is a great way for folks to feel heard.

When folks are upset, have a complaint, etc, don't forget to say sorry or show concern in other ways ("that's terrible...I am sorry you are upset"). Formulate an action plan with a measurable next step ("Can I call you with an update at 8am tomorrow morning?). Make sure you have contact information for the caller. Finally, thank the person for calling and sharing their concerns. Patients and families are the reason you have a job.

Now, if a person wants to keep talking and talking, and talking some more, or is pelting you with a circular conversation (repeatedly making the same point or complaint), it is OK to tactfully conclude the discussion: "Mrs. Jones, I have heard your concern about X and have committed to a plan of action.....is there anything else you need help with? I do need to see other patients..."

Lastly, if you don't have time for a quality phone call because there are more pressing or emergent matters, say something like this, "Mr. Watson...thank you for calling me...I can't give you the time you deserve right now...can I call you back at 2pm today?" Most folks will understand. However, you have to follow through on your commitment.

Doug Wojcieszak, Founder and President
Sorry Works!
618-559-8168 (direct dial)
doug@sorryworks.net

The Empathy Set App

To get an idea of what the empathy set is and how to use, please watch this short (1:48) explainer video. For more information about The Empathy Set App, please click here.

Kid tears card as powerful gesture on path to resolution facilitated by teacher!

In this short video, John Ford, producer of The Empathy Set of Cards, interviews guest Nona Ikeda about her experience using the cards to resolve a conflict between two students at a Charter School in Northern California.

To watch the full interview from which this portion is extracted, click here.

Empathize with humanity, but...