Power of empathy?

From researcher Brene Brown on the distinction between empathy and sympathy, among other characteristics of empathy:

It's interesting that Brown quotes another scholar, Theresa Wiseman, who studied professions in which empathy is (allegedly) important. Wiseman came up with four main qualities of empathy based on these studies:

1. Perspective taking (ability to take perspective of another person or recognize their perspective as their truth)
2. Staying out of judgment (not easy when you enjoy it as much as most of us do)
3. Recognizing emotion in other people 
4. Communicating that 

To me, I can say yes to all of those things. I can take people's perspective, as well as other people (maybe better?). I stay out of judgment (no bandwagon angry mob public shaming). I can recognize emotion in other people and communicate it back to them, it's why I am so good at reading and manipulating people. My main problem is recognizing emotion in myself. But Professor Brown then concludes that empathy is "feeling with other people." Ok, maybe that is what it is, or maybe that is what it feels like for most people (whether or not that's even possible or if people are just projecting their own emotions on the empathy target). But if the four main qualities don't include "feeling with other people," is that what is really valuable about empathy? If I can do the other four things, am I basically covering all of the important empathy bases?

On selflessness

From a reader:

As a constant, I am aware of the fact that nobody means much to me as aside from what they directly provide. That actually doesn't sound terrible: while everybody tries to side-step the matter and down on the word "selfish," to be "selfish" is healthy. Normal people get a selfish pleasure out of the well being of those whom they care for. "Selfish" does not have to mean at the expense of others, only that you are doing it for yourself. If you feel good donating to charity, you are going to do it because you enjoy that. It is only when donating to charity makes you unhappy and you perform it as a perceived obligation that it is truly selfless (although, even then, you are probably donating for the personal reward of an afterlife, or for the personal reward of social approval). Can you imagine an atheist schizoid with better use of his money chucking it away instead? Where's the motivation?                                                                                 
    
But I don't feel bad when those presumably close to me suffer. I only choose to extend a facade of "are you alright?" because I fear that they will catch onto such and stop contributing to whatever it is that I keep them around for. How can I expect sympathy for my suffering or understanding when the root of my condition stems from the idea that I will never be able to reciprocate affection? What masochist is willing to love and attend to a brick wall? Perhaps one of delusion, but then, he doesn't understand, and can't even begin to entertain my honesty. So what can I say, except "I am sorry that this is how I am"? Even when I apologize for it, it is less because I feel bad that I hurt them, and more a wave of self-pity when I want something to preserve. I'm sorry. I can't help it.                                                                                                            

Sociopaths: pitiable?

I confess to never having had the patience to read The Sociopath Next Door all the way through, but I did find this psychologist's review of it interesting because it gets at the core of what many have accused this blog of trying to accomplish -- manipulating people to pity us:

"The most reliable sign, the most universal behavior of unscrupulous people is not directed, as one might imagine, at our fearfulness. It is, perversely, an appeal to our sympathy."

The pity play or attempt to appeal to the sympathy of others was also addressed in research conducted by the Minnesota Department of Corrections and The Hazelden Foundation (2002). There, researchers concluded that criminal thinkers most often attempt to control others by portraying themselves as a victim, turning to fear tactics only when the victim stance fails to get them what they want.

The act of eliciting pity from another unequivocally makes the elicitor something to be pitied, a victim, per se. It is human nature to aid the pitied. Hence, the pity play, or victim stance, stands to get the Sociopath what he or she wants easily and without being found out as a bad guy. This is manipulation. Manipulation is the tool of choice for smart criminal thinkers and, according to Dr. Stout, the Sociopaths amongst us. She says, "Sociopaths have no regard whatsoever for the social contract, but they do know how to use it to their advantage. And all in all, I am sure that if the devil existed, he would want us to feel very sorry for him."

I sort of don't understand this argument, perhaps not surprisingly. Does the devil not deserve pity because he doesn't meet the criteria (i.e. not pitiable enough)? Or does he not deserve it because it wouldn't mean the same thing to him (i.e. wasted on him)? Or is it because, as the author suggests, there is something wrong with your pity being used for a purpose (i.e. getting you to think about something from another's point of view) rather than just functioning as one of the empath's favorite self-indulgent pastimes? I really want to understand, and I know some of our readers are very smart with strong feelings about this subject, so let's have at it. For once and for all, let's discuss all the reasons why this blog is manipulative and sociopaths aren't worthy of pity, etc. etc. And just for fun, let's try to use arguments that wouldn't apply equally to some other more "acceptable" variants of humanity.