Strategic Empathy
We have grown up learning that we must always put ourselves in others’ shoes to understand how they feel. We were taught to recognize other people's pain so we could empathize with them better. Empathy is important because it makes us humble, less cruel, and helps create a more livable society. Simply put, empathy is feeling someone else’s pain so we can engage with them from a place of warmth instead of offering mindless advice. Sometimes, all a person needs is a comforting hand on their shoulder, assuring them that they will get through their situation, no matter how bad it seems.
I want to go a step further and suggest using empathy strategically. No, I don’t mean becoming a conniving, manipulative, or cruel person. I am proposing the idea of putting oneself in another’s shoes as a strategic tool to learn more about them. You will not only hate them less but also gain a deeper understanding of how incentives shape people’s actions.
Life is often a series of transactions. We engage in transactions with our parents, partners, friends, colleagues, business associates, and even strangers. We generally don’t care about another person’s incentives unless we love them. If we don’t love them as much as we love our family, we tend to focus on extracting the best outcome for ourselves. With friends, as a token of appreciation, we also give our best in return. Most of us engage in this kind of transactional relationship—like a barter deal.
These transactions sound fair in theory, but in practice, they often leave people feeling unappreciated. The reason is simple: when transactions involve emotional reciprocation, satisfaction depends on an individual's emotional needs. Consoling someone for an hour is not necessarily equal to them consoling you for an hour. Their appetite for emotional support may be greater or lesser than yours. If it’s greater, they may feel underappreciated. If it’s less, they may feel burdened by you.
This is why I dislike such transactions—over time, no one remains happy in a purely transactional relationship. Familiarity breeds contempt. So, what’s the alternative? We cannot empathize with others in the same way we do with a deeply loved one or even with ourselves. Stubbing your toe on the bed feels different than someone else stubbing theirs—you can empathize, but you don’t feel it in the same way.
We may not fully empathize with others, but we can understand their motives and incentives. What drives them? What would make them happy? What is their ideal solution to the problem they’re presenting to you? When someone proposes something to you, it’s natural to consider your own interests first—and they do the same. Everyone wants the best for themselves. This is where conflict arises. Sometimes, the best interests of both parties collide.
At this point, empathy takes a back seat, and competition begins because neither party can see a solution without feeling like they’re losing. The same applies to the other person. In such cases, we need to use strategic empathy. This means setting aside emotions and biases to think purely from the other person’s perspective.
It starts with a simple question: If you were in their position, what would you prefer? What outcome would be most beneficial to you in their situation? The answer might be exactly what they’re doing to you, and you may dislike this realization—which is why it's crucial to put aside emotions and biases. You need to explore the alternatives that would hurt them the most in their position. This isn’t to act on them but to understand their vulnerabilities and, in turn, where their true incentives lie.
Once you understand their incentives, you can align yours accordingly. If they hold the power, you must do the legwork of aligning your incentives with theirs. If you hold the power, you can choose when and how to exert it. Most people are poor negotiators because they negotiate from a place of emotion. They bring a gun to a knife fight. They threaten harsh consequences when a simple compromise would have sufficed.
If your best interest conflicts with theirs, you need to think strategically from their position and find an alternative they wouldn’t mind accepting—one that doesn’t hurt you either. That is what true compromise looks like. Unlike typical compromises, the goal here is to work within a framework of mutual preferences. The problem with making threats is that if the other person values their incentive more than they fear your consequences, you will lose the contest. That’s why it’s more beneficial to analyze their incentives and understand how badly they want something.
The next time you're in a negotiation, prepare by stepping into their shoes to understand their incentives and motives. Ask yourself: Who holds the power in this negotiation? There has to be someone—because true equals don’t negotiate, they form partnerships.
If the other person holds the power, ask: What is their most advantageous outcome? If it materializes, would it harm you? If so, how much? Conversely, if your ideal outcome happens, would it hurt them, or would they be indifferent? If your best outcome doesn’t affect them much, you don’t need to compromise. However, if their desired outcome could harm you, you must carefully strategize.
If your incentives hurt them and they hold the power, your goal should be to quickly identify an alternative that benefits you—not as much as the ideal outcome, but enough to be considered a win. This is the point of equilibrium. In game theory, this concept is known as Nash Equilibrium, where both parties reach a stable outcome. However, in reality, not everyone wins—so I’ve slightly adapted this idea of equilibrium. The key is to identify the power balance before making any moves.
Empathy is understanding another person’s pain so you can offer warmth and comfort. Strategic empathy is understanding their incentives, their position of power, and using this knowledge to your advantage. The goal is to choose the optimal alternative by considering the incentives of everyone involved in a transaction.