🧠 Toxic Empathy or Selective Listening?

What happens when empathy gets political, twisted, or just plain misunderstood?

👋 Hello from New York City!
I'm writing/recording this while wrapping up a business trip that took me to Toronto and New York City in rapid fashion. The Big Apple feels like the perfect place to respond to a pair of New York Times articles from July—both about empathy and revealing about the role empathy plays in our actions and how it can be used for selfish ends.

First off, I’m thrilled to see the Times dedicating more space to empathy, especially its so-called “dark side.” More on that in a moment.

Over two consecutive days in mid-July, the Times published two articles on toxic empathy and how cultural conservatives are now attempting to weaponize it.
(Thanks to everyone who made sure these hit my inbox!)

VIDEO VERSION IS HERE, KEEP SCROLLING TO KEEP READING:

📰 The Rundown

• The first piece to come out was an interview by NYT opinion columnist Ross Douthat with Allie Beth Stuckey, podcast host and author of the bestselling book Toxic Empathy: How Progressives Exploit Christian Compassion. Stuckey argues that the cultural right is being pulled into a progressive belief-system because of empathy and that empathy can lead you to do three things: 1) validate lies; 2) affirm sin; 3) support destructive policies.

• The second was an analysis by NYT non-fiction book critic Jennifer Szalai, titled How Empathy Became a Threat. Szalai explores Stuckey’s book as well as The Sin of Empathy by Joe Rigney and compares it to Paul Bloom’s landmark (imo) Against Empathy.

What I saw in both pieces is the exposure of a calculated twisting of empathy. Rather than recognizing their own selective use of it, Stuckey and Rigney label empathy itself as the problem. Au contraire!

I’ll explain how I think about this in a moment. First, let’s pause for an empathy refresher:

🔍 A Quick Empathy Refresher

There are two types of empathy:

• Cognitive empathy: Seeing someone else’s perspective.

• Emotional empathy: Feeling someone else’s emotions as they feel them.

🧠 Neuroscientists like Helen Riess and Jamil Zaki have shown we’re wired for both.
🧒 According to child development studies, empathy begins showing up around 18 months old.

As adults, in most situations, cognitive empathy is what we access most easily. That’s because of how we’re socialized to think about displays of emotion. Those endless tapes from media, mentors and our individual influencers (caregivers, teachers etc) have created barriers in our heads about showing emotion, particularly in the workplace. Plus, emotional empathy is more readily accessed with people we know well—friends, family, those with shared experiences who are “just like us.” Once we are outside of that circle many of us use cognitive empathy.

(And yes, there are HSPs and Empaths who are more perceptive and intuitive, able to pick up on others feelings empathetically so they are operating with their emotional empathy more highly attuned and face different challenges. More on that below…)

Let’s also distinguish how we have empathy for individuals and groups. It’s often the story of a person within a group that sparks an empathetic connection and then action.

Recall any natural disaster you are familiar with - for example, the flash floods in Texas on July 4 that claimed at least 135 lives. One hundred thirty-five people, lost. It can be hard to wrap our heads around the tragedy and know what to do about it because the number becomes overwhelming. But when you hear the story of one of the Camp Mystic campers who was unable to escape the waters swamping her cabin, it suddenly connects us to the tragedy. We can imagine what it might be like to have been in that cabin in the dark amid rising and rushing water. The story of the one person can help you have empathy with them - and then expand that out to all the other campers as well as the other victims of the flash floods.

The story of one sits at the core of our inspiration to act with compassion such as making a donation. It is empathy that helps drive a desire to more deeply understand the tragedy or call for the need for better safeguards and warning systems. The Story of One is a powerful tool to get people inspired to take action.

Which brings me back to Allie Beth Stuckey…

🤔 Selective Empathy Isn’t Empathy. Is It?

In her interview, Stuckey argues that people are “over-empathizing” with one side and that is causing people to make decisions that are skewing their beliefs and leading them to support cruel behavior. Allie Beth identifies as a conservative Christian and so she’s concerned that fellow evangelical Christians like her are being moved to what she’d consider more ‘progressive’ viewpoints.

In the interview (and the transcript is in the article if you don’t want to watch/listen), she starts by sharing a story about how she has empathy when traveling with moms navigating strollers and children on the jet bridge boarding a plane. This is because she had been in situations like this and knew the mother needed help. So yes, in this situation she’s having empathy with her fellow mom and that’s generating a compassionate action in response.

Then, she goes on to describe a scenario from the debate on abortion. She presents the story of a woman named Samantha, as reported on NPR, in mid-term pregnancy discovering that the fetus she’s carrying is not viable outside of the womb. Stuckey says that the left focuses on the mom’s suffering while she chooses to focus on the baby that will be born and to provide it with end-of-life rituals.

She doesn’t make any further reference to the mom or express understanding of what the mom is going through or showing that she can imagine what anguish the mom would be going through emotionally. Instead, she’s all about the unborn baby.

But here’s the thing: She’s choosing sides.

That’s not an indictment of empathy.
That’s just being selective.

💡 You can empathize with both the mother and the fetus.

When I read her comments about the end-of-life rituals, I found myself saying, “I get that.” I had cognitive empathy with her view.
And I also have empathy for the woman carrying the pregnancy—and the trauma she’ll endure.

Empathy lets us hold multiple truths. And when we do, we can explore an issue from different perspectives, forming decisions based on our values, experience, and facts — as well as empathy.

That’s not toxic.
That’s human.

Having empathy doesn’t mean you give up your own belief, it means you have made room in your head or heart to understand and connect to what someone else is experiencing.

In this case, looking at the three behaviors which she says makes empathy toxic - there are no lies being validated, the affirmation of sin would be subjective based on what behavior you define as sinful and the destructive policies again depends on your point of view on the issue.

While Stuckey is expressing empathy with her side, she would make a more compelling case if she expressed understanding both sides of an argument. If she had said “this is a horrible tragedy affecting three lives, the pregnant mother, the father and the baby. As a mom myself, I can imagine the distress of discovering your baby isn’t going to survive the pregnancy. I choose to give that poor child a proper burial in recognition of it’s humanity, and here’s why…” Then, she could build out her case for the decision.

When you take this approach, it can increase the acceptance of the other party to the decision or perspective being offered. That’s because you are validating that you see the other side’s perspective - helping them feel seen and heard - while then going on to disagree and offering your perspective which, hopefully, the other side will be able to have cognitive empathy with.

❄️ Empathy Gets ICE’d

Stuckey goes on to do the same selective empathy thing on the topic of immigration and deportation.

She supports aggressive ICE deportation tactics but doesn’t acknowledge the trauma caused when masked agents sweep people into detention centers with little to no legal contact or support. She focuses on the importance of having a strong border and cracking down on criminals to make society safer.

Again: it’s not that she’s devoid of empathy herself. She feels that progressives over-empathize with what they see as the victim (people who immigrate) and then develop policies that are actually cruel and destructive (sanctuary cities, lax enforcement of immigration laws) because of this over-identification with the victim.

She admits that she has empathy with people who want to have a better life and decide to immigrate but she chooses to override it with her Christian beliefs, and what she can find in the Bible.

(And if you happen to listen or read her interview with Ross Douthat, I’d love to hear your thoughts on her tone when she mentions Laken Riley and Kate Steinle, both killed by illegal immigrants, and how those are names that New York Times readers may not be familiar with.)

And yet, she’s citing Paul Bloom’s book, Against Empathy, and his recognition of empathy as a neutral state as the starting point for her own arguments. But she takes empathy and feels it gets twisted into this toxic state by progressives and has chosen herself to uncouple compassion and compassionate acts from empathy, which isn’t how that works. It is also in direct contradiction to her opening story about helping moms on the jet bridge with the stroller and unruly kids.

📚 What Paul Bloom Actually Said

This is where Szalai’s piece shines. She shows how Bloom’s work is being misused.
Bloom doesn’t argue against empathy—he says empathy is neutral and must be balanced with rationality.

When I train people on empathy, I always shout out the HSPs—Highly Sensitive Persons. These are the folks whose empathy is turned up to 11. They’re the gold medalists of emotional awareness and perceiving others emotions.

But if they’re not careful, their emotions can tip the scales too far. They risk making decisions without balancing the other data. It can also overwhelm their decision-making so they feel helpless.

That’s Bloom’s actual point.
And what Stuckey and Rigney have twisted.

They are weaponizing the idea of empathy as something that is bad. It’s like how superpowers belong to both heroes and villains. It is the choice of the individual how they use their power. In this case, Stuckey and Rigney are making a case that empathy is bad and toxic. It can, in their opinion, only be good when it supports their world view.

And that feels opportunistic, not empathetic.

🕳️ The True Dark Side of Empathy

For more on how empathy can be perverted, let’s not forget Michael Ventura’s great guest essay in the Times:
🗓️ “The Dark Side of Empathy” (May 4, 2025).

He explores how empathy can be used for harm, especially by narcissists and sociopaths.
Empathy’s not just a feel-good superpower—it’s also a tool that can manipulate.

How you use empathy is based on your own sense of morals and ethics. If empathy is truly neutral, and I believe it is, then how you use it is a choice that only you can make.

So here’s your PSA:
🎯 If you think someone is using your emotions against you, they probably are.

And also: check yourself.
⚠️ Are you using empathy to get your way at someone else’s expense? How might you modify that so you get to a win-win for everyone involved?

I’d like to think most of us aren’t using empathy at the expense of others.
But I wasn’t born yesterday.

🧾 Let’s Recap

✅ There are two types of empathy: cognitive and emotional
✅ Empathy is a neutral state—it’s how you use it that matters
✅ Use empathy to inform your communication, persuasion, and compassion
✅ Balance it with facts, values, and your own lived experience
✅ Empathy can be used to manipulate—watch out
✅ And always: stay curious about others

📣 Let’s Keep Talking

💬 Got thoughts? Seen empathy twisted in your own world?
Reply to this email or leave a comment—I’d love to hear your take.

If you found this helpful, please like, share, and subscribe so you don’t miss future editions.

Until next time,
– Rob

🕊️ May you find a moment today to use that small dose of courage inside you to practice empathy—with intention.