When I taught social work, I very quickly learned that you cannot rely on the empathy presupposed in people who go into such professions, and that empathy can be co-learned. I use that term co-learned because one of the most damaging assumptions in education is that educators (teachers if you prefer) are often in deficit of values, skills, knowledge and meta-awareness of all these three things, such that they cannot ‘teach’ those they jump to the conclusion too soon that they ‘cannot be taught’. In my experience, these people stopped learning with’qualificaion’ and someone who does not continue learning should not be ‘teaching’, for the values they espouse are marked by being able to relearn empathy whenever necessary, especially by those you teach.
In those cases in particular, with an analogy with assumptions that are assumed in medical, social work and counselling training and practice, empathy and learning must go hand in hand. Most specialists in professional training with a brain adapted to meta-awareness of what ‘teaching’ does tell us know that empathy can be learned, unlearned and relearned. Whilst in the process of learning empathy, we learn also that it involves a number of component values, skills and knowledge; such as valuing the otherness of persons – and parts of ourselves, perspective-taking from an unaccustomed and necessary-to-be-imagined view point, emotional awareness, self-regulation, and so on…). But, more importantly we learn how empathy, however acquirred and of whatever kind, can be eradicated.
In some ways this is related to cultures of objectivity, and distancing once thought to be essential to professionalism, without awareness that neither objectivity nor critical distance are merely binary alternatives to developing an educated awareness of the subjective and proxemics of closeness across our feelings, thoughts and sometimes, with cautions, actions. F. Diane Barth in Psychology Today says:
Research has shown that empathy is not simply inborn, but can actually be taught. For example, it appears that medical training can actually diminish empathy, but on the other hand, physicians can be taught to be more empathic to their patients. Interestingly, their increased empathy also increases patient satisfaction and compliance with treatment recommendations.
It seems to me that these techniques could work with a lot of people besides physicians. As I listen to clients, colleagues, and friends discussing their concerns these days, I find myself thinking that we should be teaching empathy in school. Perhaps if we start in the early grades and keep teaching it through high school, problems of bullying, harassment, and other inappropriate behavior would diminish. [1]
The Science Insights website approaches the issue statistically, at first, saying:
Empathy is both inherited and learned, but the balance tips heavily toward learning. Twin studies estimate that genetics account for roughly 28% of the variation in empathy between people, leaving about 72% shaped by environment, upbringing, and personal experience. That means the capacity for empathy has biological roots, but how fully it develops depends largely on what you encounter growing up and how you choose to practice it as an adult. [2]
The whole article continues with some idea of the biochemical and neurological components of inherited empathy, often tipped by evolution to empathy to those perceived as ‘like’ the person feeling empathy and therefore biased to pre-known communities and the physical markers in the body of those communities, or sub-communities – and hence at ease in alliance with cultural sexism, racism and other prejudgment of individual difference, ranked in easy category perceptions.
It goes on to justify the 28% heritability component of those factors, but then looks at the ‘learned’ or environmentally acquired components, by far the larger and involving cognition as knowledge and process, as well as the various knowledge, process and skill groups involved – including those linked to values like inclusivity, cooperation and the development of what Early Christian Greeks – and the makers of the New Testament – called ἀγάπη (agápē) and early English translations called ‘charity’, modern one, ‘love’.
That work does not oppose cultural learning from biological substrates for empathy, including the fashionable interest in the hormone oxytocin, and the role of the amygdala and other brain organs and networks in the regulation of fear responses and learning, but rather sees the two factors as integrative:
Most of the rigorous research has been done with healthcare workers and medical students, where empathy directly affects patient outcomes. Training programs for medical students produced a medium-to-large positive effect on empathy scores compared to control groups. But the underlying techniques are not specific to medicine.
What’s especially compelling is that empathy training physically changes the brain. After short-term empathy training, participants showed increased activation in the insula, the anterior midcingulate cortex, the prefrontal cortex, and several deeper brain structures compared to a control group that practiced memory exercises instead. These aren’t obscure brain regions. They’re the same networks that support empathy naturally, suggesting that training strengthens existing empathy circuits rather than creating something artificial. [2]
An even stronger contribution from Ashley Abramson of the American Psychological Association develops these ideas into practical work with social prejudice, working towards discriminating between the problematic issues around empathy based on perceived ‘likeness’ alone and that which sees empathy as expanding the targets of those in receipt of it
Empathy may also be a crucial ingredient in mitigating bias and systemic racism. Jason Okonofua (opens in new window), PhD, an assistant professor of psychology at the University of California, Berkeley, has found that teachers are more likely to employ severe discipline with Black students—and that they’re more likely to label Black students as “troublemakers” (Psychological Science (opens in new window), Vol. 26, No. 5, 2015).
These labels, Okonofua said, can shape how teachers interpret behavior, forging a path toward students’ school failure and incarceration. When Okonofua and his colleagues created an intervention to help teachers build positive relationships with students and value their perspectives, their increased empathy reduced punitive discipline (PNAS (opens in new window), Vol. 113, No. 19, 2016).
Similarly, Okonofua and colleagues found empathy from parole officers can prevent adults on probation from reoffending (PNAS (opens in new window), Vol. 118, No. 14, 2021).
In spite of its potential benefits, empathy itself isn’t an automatic path toward social good. To develop empathy that actually helps people requires strategy. “If you’re trying to develop empathy in yourself or in others, you have to make sure you’re developing the right kind,” said Sara Konrathopens (in new window), PhD, an associate professor of social psychology at Indiana University who studies empathy and altruism.[3]
When Okonofua and his colleagues created an intervention to help teachers build positive relationships with students and value their perspectives, their increased empathy reduced punitive discipline
The most powerful paragraph, to me at least, above is that which reveals that empathy co-learning can ‘shape how teachers interpret behavior, forging a path toward students’ school failure and incarceration’. Teachers who only teach, and do not coincidentally learn, empathy are the only ones equipped for such a role, for changes in their response are unlikely to be just from improved behaviour in the designated learners, but in both tjeir perception and tesponse to situations.
I remember being for a time Subject Leader in Social Work at Teesside University, whete numbers of supposed teachers of Health and Social Care complained about me circulating new research and even government guidelines on things like safeguarding children and adults, let alone research on empathic methodologies sauing they were ‘irrelevant ‘ to their medical subject matter. I despaired wouldn’t you, especially when they were supported by the whole corona of sub-deans of the school.
These people said they nothing to learn from Social work methodologies, and indeed it seems that was true too of learning from learners,clients, or patients. They had a course on that they claimed, taught from stereotyped lesson plans and delivered without participation despite tne fact tbis was its subject matter.
And you can’t teach empathy or the ‘soft’ subjects related to the profession. You can and you must, although it may already be too late.
Bye for now
With love
Steven xxxxxxx
_____________________________________________
[1] F. Diane Barth L.C.S.W. (2018) ‘Can Empathy Be Taught?: Research shows that empathy is a powerful social tool. Can it be learned?’ in Psychology Today (online) Posted October 18, 2018 available: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-couch/201810/can-empathy-be-taught?msockid=02192a5dc46d6948199d3d6ac5376885
[2] See whole 2026 article at: https://scienceinsights.org/is-empathy-learned/
[3] Abramson (2021) ‘Psychologists’ research offers insight into why it’s so important to practice the “right” kind of empathy, and how to grow these skills’ in American Psychological Association (online) November 1, from print version Vol. 52 No. 8: page 44ff. Available at: https://www.apa.org/monitor/2021/11/feature-cultivating-empathy
Steve_Bamlett_blog 