Jean Stimmell, retired stone mason and psychotherapist, lives in Northwood and blogs at jeanstimmell.blogspot.com and jstim.substack.com.

I recently objected in a ‘My Turn’ op-ed to Elon Musk’s bizarre claim that “The fundamental weakness of Western civilization is empathy.” This assertion is yet another example of the Trump Administration engaging in what George Orwell called “doublespeak:” fooling citizens into believing that things are the opposite of what they really are.

Classic examples of Orwellian doublespeak include “war is peace” and “freedom is slavery.”

Musk’s statement outraged columnists across the nation. Molly Worthen in the New York Times was incredulous. She asked: “How can we not want children to grasp perspectives of people different from themselves?”

Michael Ventura, author of Applied Empathy, wrote that belittling empathy is part of a deliberate strategy. He pointed out that Trump has a long track record of disparaging empathy as naïve, “casting strength as synonymous with domination, suggesting that to care is to lose — and to control is to win.”

It is classic Orwellian doublespeak, Ventura pointed out: “They want to reframe care as weakness, dignity as naïveté and trust as a liability.” He urged us not to take the bait.

Until Trump and his apostles came along, empathy had always been regarded as a moral good that promoted virtuous deeds. No longer. Sadly, these empathy nay-sayers have become an increasingly loud chorus, reaching beyond politics and business to infect even my old profession of psychology.

I was dumbfounded when I read that a psychologist like Paul Bloom would adopt a Trumpian stance, asserting that empathy is a “parochial, narrow-minded” emotion — one that “will have to yield to reason if humanity is to survive.”⁠

As a retired psychotherapist, I think he has gone off the deep end. So did Daryl Cameron, Michael Inzlicht and William A. Cunningham, all researchers featured in a New York Times opinion piece titled “Empathy is Actually a Choice.” These psychologists consider empathy critical to human survival. They proved, contrary to public perceptions, that empathy is not a fixed personality trait — something you either have or you don’t. Instead, it is a skill that requires practice. It can be improved upon with effort, like learning to play tennis.

Their research shows that when individuals are made aware that empathy is a skill, they put more effort into understanding groups different from their own. Through this effort to understand, their empathy for others grew. Their conclusion: Empathy for people unlike us can be expanded simply by modifying our views about empathy.

I learned that lesson early in my clinical practice. I admit that occasionally I wasn’t drawn to a new client who, at first glance, might seem hostile, needy or narcissistic.

But after I got to know my clients, I was able to connect with every one of them, valuing each as a unique and valuable individual. It was a natural process that required no effort on my part, with one significant caveat: I had to first get out of my head — stop my chattering, judgmental mind — to understand what the person before me was really saying.

Jamil Zaki has written an excellent book, “The War for Kindness,” reinforcing the notion that empathy is a skill, a skill that requires making a conscious choice to show empathy. Her conclusion is that with practice, “over time, empathic choices add up — building empathic habits and, eventually, empathic people.”⁠

The empathy research I conducted revealed a very distressing aspect: Studies have shown that powerful individuals exhibit less empathy than any other group. This happens because they have little incentive to interact with other people.

It is a sad commentary on our times that two such powerful billionaires have been able to buy their way to the top of our government. They exemplify how wealthy and influential individuals often exhibit negligible empathy for the downtrodden, the poor and those who are different from themselves.