Compassion Vs Fact

Analysis (Part I)

I’d like to process today how many layers of consideration do we have to put into when we consider a root of a problem/argument/debate/conflict/etc etc etc?

Then we use “compassion” when we consider someone else problem. How far we can sustain such a compassion when it comes to dealing with a problem? Do we outright demand an expected response what it’s supposed to be or do we have a personal compassion which is in turn dictated by many strata of consideration?

Here’s an example.

You’re waiting at the bus stop. The bus is scheduled to arrive at 9:00am. Let’s say, you are willing to give the bus some slack for plus or minus 2 minutes timeliness. So the psycho analysis is how far are you willing to give in your understanding for the bus late arrival? The bus arrives at 9:30am? Or 9:15am?

Here’s another one.

You’re in a line for Starbucks coffee. You saw a long line with many customers. A cashier was asking all customers their names to write down on their drinks. When it came to your turn, you realized she didn’t ask your name. What just happened? How many factors do you need to take into account to start feeling a compassion for the cashier oversight?

The bus could have probably experienced a technical problem or many passengers from the prior stop took an extra long time to board on the bus. Those are typical issues that would pop up in your consideration.

The cashier at Starbucks could have innocently forgot to ask your name after going through lots of customers or the cashier could have probably thought she already asked your name, mixing up with a previous person who just paid his drink. Those are minor consideration you could have given for a cashier mishandling her job.

There are many variables or factors that could have engendered such a slight glitch in our daily activities or encounters. The question is how far we could sustain our “understanding” after encountering the same variable or factor over and over again?

The bus keeps arriving late to your stop and their schedule becomes random. The cashier keeps forgetting to ask your name although you saw her asking other customers name. The variables that were once given slack now becomes “constant”. The constant that sometimes appears innocent, somehow eventually develops into more complex, subconscious abstract.

Analysis (Part II)

I also notice that as a human, including myself, we always stop short of going further when we sustain our understanding. If our consideration requires to figure out the root of the problem that actually resulted from more than a lifetime duration, the problem becomes “fact” rather than retrieving our “sympathy”.

I’m always fascinated by an idea that tries to figure out the cause of the problem; usually a step further down the analysis tree. But that does not always mean that I become sympathetic to the problem. What I found myself is I become much more understanding to the problem, rather than sympathetic to the problem itself.

Here’s an example to give you a clear picture of what I meant by “fact” and “a step further down analysis” approach.

Mr.X is short.

The emphasis I like to bring forward is “Layers of consideration”. I’m not interested in arguing over who is Mr. X, complaining, racism, or whatever that usually rile up people behavior. I’m more interested in the analysis of the problem.

What do you think of that statement?

You'd probably hear: 

“Yes, maybe Mr. X's genetics?” Or

“I think it’s also something to do with Mr. X nutrition?” Or

“He doesn't eat a lot?” with a tongue in cheek comment.

There’s nothing wrong with all those assumptions or observations. The factor that we can think of in our analysis is there are so many variables that influence one’s height. But for the sake of simplicity, let’s just take two variables here: genetics and nutrition. To take into account of Genetics role, we have to look at Mr. X parents, grandparents, siblings, etc etc etc. In nutrition department, we can look at the Mr. X eating life style throughout his past history. 

With all those many layers of consideration, many variables with a mixture of each individual components, we don’t have much of a clearer picture of why Mr. X is short. Maybe genetics or maybe nutrition. But there's no definitive answer to that. Even nutrition is considered a causal effect, we can't instantly change a Mr. X height by feeding him. We're not even talking about developmental stages in a person's life. The bottom line is whatever the cause is, be it lucid or nebulous, the cause that lasted for more than a lifetime, becomes “Fact”. We don’t really know or care what actually causes him to be short. Why? Does it really matter for us to sympathize with his short stature? Or is it even worth a sympathy for shortness in the first place to begin with?

My opinion on this is when the causal effect is nebulous and could have probably lasted more than a lifetime to eventually develop into something that we know of today, our so-called compassion and consideration becomes blurry and our observation becomes “fact” rather than soliciting our “sympathy”.

Another example is let's say: Mr. Tim is poor. 

1st scenario is Mr. Tim grandparents had a fire incident before he was born that took away his grandparents fortunes. Mr. Tim parents and he himself had many hurdles to overcome in following years due to poor upbringing. He tries at his best; sometimes he succeeds, sometimes he fails. The bottom line is he is still poor.

2nd scenario is Mr. Tim is rich. Mr. Tim becomes broke and poor when his accumulated wealth was destroyed overnight by natural disaster, fire, flood, earthquake, etc etc etc.

Which scenario would you be more willing to sympathize with Mr. Tim situation?

The causal effect that lasted more than a lifetime or the causal effect that you witnessed during your lifetime, which one will solicit your sympathy more?

Analysis (Part III)

Now coming back to our thought process of “Bus schedule”, and “Starbucks” events, do we consider them as “Facts” or do those events call for our “Sympathy” or “Understanding” in the first place?

“The bus was late” is a statement that we don’t need to dwell in an idea that the causal effect is temporary and it’s not due to lifelong eventual process.

“Starbucks oversight” is also another event where the cashier didn’t develop her forgetfulness over the years. It’s a temporary glitch.

The point I want to make here is when the causal effect is lifelong eventual development, they don’t usually call for our “compassion” or “sympathy”, rather they become “Facts” as they are in present time.

Because of interplay between those timeline and causal effect, it becomes so much more complicated to figure out where we should withhold our “understanding” based upon “fact” or “compassion”.