introduction

It is often misunderstood that people are capable of empathy, but no, not really: most people are not inherently capable of feeling empathy as it is often assumed. Empathy is mistakingly seen as natural and automatic, while in reality it is cognitive process heavily reliant on their psychological frameworks and emotional experiences.

From this observation we can also conclude that:

• If one desires to be emotionally understood he must justify the emotion.

We can see this as a form of translation:

• Subjective experience into shareable information.

The failure of assuming empathy

The first error in emotional communication is the belief that expressing an emotion guarantees that it will be understood in the way it is intended, this assumptions fails for a simple reason:

People do not experience emotions through your emotional framework. They experience it through theirs

An emotion, when expressed without context, is just a peace of information that does not indicate the range of actions nor the environment behind it. Hence, it is fully dependent of the recepient's internal references.

Emotional Argumentation vs Rational Framing

The inefficiency of Raw Emotional Argumentation

Relying on pure emotional statements such as "this hurts me" expects the listener to reverse-engineer:

• Why does this hurt you?
• What does it mean within your world?
• How does it connect to your values?

This is an unrealistic expectation, as thinking is exhaustive, for the sake of the ego, those are most so often subconsciously answered by the listener. This leads to an immediate rejection of the emotion as empathy is defeated by a superficial scenario replacement (listener places himself at the instant materialistic scenario).

Psychological Consequences of Misplaced Blame

Blame, whether explicit or subtle, has a predictable psychological consequence: it activates a feeling of helpless inadequacy in the other person. If you say to someone: "Your action hurts me" it opens room for a sequence of thoughts:

Even though I try... → ...attempt is insufficient... → I am insufficient..

Similar to the idea of a student who studies extensively and yet fails an exam. The resulting emotion is not an anger of the exam itself but a form of existential frustration. This pattern is bad for the long-term sense of security within a relationship.

Translation, Not Accusation

From this, a simple rule emerges:

The task in emotional communication is not to accuse but to translate.

This shifts the structure of the conversation from confrontation to collaboration, reframing the dynamic to one where both parties are learners. It recognizes that:

• No matter how much love is present, it does not come with an intuitive understanding.
• Care is not the same as comprehension as one can deeply care for someone but be confused as how they feel.

Formal Principles for Emotional Communication

1. Empathy Is Not Passive

2. Untranslated Emotion Lead To Misinterpretation.

3. Blame Triggers Defensiveness and Helplessness

4. The Correct Framework Is: Process → Feeling → Request.

5. Emotional Differences Are Not Obstacles

Conclusion

Without translation, no feeling can be reliably shared.

In essence, the highest form of love is to teach how to be understood, not to expect to be.