Within the article “is Empathy Overrated?” written by psychology professor Paul Bloom, the idea that empathy can have a negative connotation is discussed. Bloom introduces the idea that empathy is seen as a negative rather than a positive, and that it can be “narrow, biased and surprisingly insensitive” (Bloom 1). He uses ideas such as explaining  how empathy is a spotlight and is limiting towards others and uses the Sandy Hook shooting as an example. He also goes on to discuss how everyone deserves empathy, but not everyone can receive empathy because not everyone can empathize with each other. We cannot empathize with everyone because we only empathize with the people we are close with, but we also cannot empathize with more than two people at a time, it is emotionally exhausting.

Although I do not agree with Bloom’s main arguments that empathy is negative, I do see where he is coming from and how it cannot be beneficial if used improperly. Bloom claims that empathy is insensitive and excludes people, causing it to trigger others that have been misused or have been excluded. He goes on to use the example of the Sandy Hook shooting where the town was receiving millions of gifts to show their sorrow for the tragedy. Gifting towns thought they were being generous and helping uplift those affected by the Sandy Hook shooting, but in reality they were just being reminded of the tragedy that has occurred. He also goes on to explain that the Sandy Hook shooting was just a small population of shootings, and that if everyone had empathy for Sandy Hook, other mass shootings should have the same empathy. I agree with Bloom here as he claims that not everyone can empathize with everyone, creating a negative connotation towards empathy, but I still believe it can be seen as a positive. Empathy is a positive in moderation, and within the case of Sandy Hook, it was not in moderation, but taken to extremes, showing why Bloom thinks it is seen as negative. Later in the article, Bloom goes on to state, “…I don’t deny that it can sometimes have good results”(Bloom 5). Here he claims that empathy is in fact necessary, but he views it as the negatives outweigh the positives, and in his opinion, makes it a negative factor. 

Bloom challenges my initial understanding regarding empathy because I always saw it as a positive, for example cheering someone up when they are upset. Bloom goes on explaining how he finds empathy to be a negative because of the fact that it excludes people, it can be seen as insensitive, it focuses all attention on one particular person or subject, and that it is limited. These ideas contradict my initial understanding of empathy because they go on to discuss the negative aspects of them and how they can separately affect people. Empathy can be insensitive and exclusive due to the fact that it only allows you to empathize with people you are close with or similar to, despite everyone needing empathy. Sometimes people like to be left alone and deal with situations on their own, but empathy causes a direct spotlight to be shined on the situation. This can sometimes not be beneficial to the people who are trying to heal, causing it to be seen as a negative. Lastly, it is limited as not everyone can have empathy for everyone, but only for one or two people. Having to put yourself in the shoes of someone else and focus all your emotions and energy into  how they are feeling can be exhausting and can be difficult, but having to do it for multiple people physically is not possible. These thoughts challenge my initial understanding because of the fact that I only considered empathy as a positive in regards to making people feel better after a situation has occurred, but after reading Bloom’s article, I do not fully agree that empathy is negative, but I can understand the points he is trying to make and I can agree that empathy can be viewed as a negative, it is just needed in moderation.