Talk:Compersion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject on Psychology
Portal		 This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.

Contents

[edit] Frubbly?

"The adjective frubbly is used in the United Kingdom to describe the feeling of compersion."

Really? As a long term UK resident I've never heard it.

--84.9.73.228 10:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Well it's not widely used, and certainly not an official word. Probably wouldn't be that notable at all, but it has the mention in the Guardian. Mdwh 15:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

"Compersion" sounds like specialized lingo of a particular non-mainstream group, which is fine, but I don't think it probably belongs in the emotion footer in with more widely-recognized emotions. I have nothing against making up new words to describe concepts like this, but I don't think it should be grouped in with emotions that appear in a dictionary. --Micah Hainline 16:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Umm, you need a definition of emotion. If your emotions are all largely biological, then jealousy is an emotion but compersion is not. Otoh, if your emotions include a cultural/interpretive side, you'll nee to include compersion. It maybe best to just leave it in the list for now. frubbly vs. compersion is just another silly UK word vs. US word situation. Frubbly will never have its own article. But you don't need much usage to justify merely mentioning it here. 195.154.69.76 01:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is this really an emotion?

I would tend to believe that based on the description, this isn't really an emotion, but rather a specific scenario which brings about another emotion.--65.168.29.10 03:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

But if you say "another emotion", it's still an emotion. Whether that emotion is labelled "compersion" or not is a matter of labels. I think what you are asking is, is the emotion described here actually the same as some emotion known by another name? Mdwh 03:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I've experienced this emotion before. I would say the feeling is as unique as it's opposite jealousy is. --Krsont 19:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm more inclined to describe this as a facilitator of emotion. For example: one does not feel jealousy. They feel anger based on the circumstance known as jealousy. In the same manor compersion gives one the feeling of happiness based on the circumstance that compersion describes. However emotion is not as defined as this and therefore allows for multifaceted emotions such as jealousy and compersion. Just because human social history has suppressed wide spread acceptance of these circumstances doesn't mean we can't define an emotion such as compersion. That is my opinion. Compersion is real and I've felt it[1]. Sukima 04:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a good question. On the face of it we seem to have here a composite state, which consists of an emotion (happiness, pleasure) TOGETHER with an eliciting thought (namely the thought of ones partner being in a relationship with some other person). DADEW 22:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personality theory

Random integrative note: As a specific instance of an Enneagram subtype counterpassion? -- Formerly the IP-Address 24.22.227.53 24.16.160.93 03:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Voyerism?

"It doesn't need to be sexual, and this distinguishes it from erotic excitement in watching another person or persons behaving sexually, known as voyeurism."

I've removed this line. First, I believe the comment about it not needing to be sexual in nature is already covered by the previous sentence which is substantially more general.

Second, nothing in the definition of compersion has anything to do with watching--which would be intrinsic to the definition of "voyerism" as opposed to simply fantasizing about someone being sexual--or with sex. The line "...positive feelings one gets when a lover is enjoying another relationship" is telling here: nothing in the term "relationship" necessarily implies sex.

Third, they are different emotions. As mentioned in that line, voyerism involves erotic excitement, as opposed to "positive feelings."

--Nachtrabe 03:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WTH???

"The experience of taking pleasure when one's partner is with another person"?????? This sounds like a PSYCHOLOGICAL DISORDER! This "compersion" is not natural and is illogical. I've never heard of this term and doubt it actually exists, but since wikipedia is overrun by extreme-liberals, I guess there's nothing I can do about it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.69.140.35 (talk) 23:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Just because you haven't heard of it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. --Marc 23:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this masochism? 201.141.121.65 (talk) 03:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

No. Masochism means deriving sexual pleasure from receiving pain. It has nothing to do with this. Marnanel (talk) 01:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

If one takes pleasure from pain, wouldn't it be easy to confuse the pain with pleasure? Maybe it is pain, one just doesn't "notice" because they take pleasure from the pain, thinking it to be genuine pleasure.

This whole subsection doesn't seem to be moving the discussion forward in any npov way. My comment isn't going to help that, but with the hope of de-mystifying things, I'll just add that there may be forms of compersion that sound less strange to people, such as: feeling joy for an old ex-, with whom you've remained friends, when he or she finds a new lover; or feeling joy for a very close (platonic) friend or family member who has found a new lover (or just gotten married, or they've had a baby) and who therefore is spending far less time with you than you are used to (both jealousy and compersion might happen in that case). While the term "compersion" seems to have been coined and primarily used by the polyamory community, the concept of feeling joy at someone else's love-life, even when it brings you no direct benefit, is probably familiar to many. --Ajasen (talk) 01:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC) 189.141.58.118 (talk) 03:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Motivations

It says: "Compersion can be said to be a form of empathy; i.e. pleasure that a loved one is experiencing a good thing in his or her life."

That's all well and good, but I don't think that's the only possible form this takes. I know a woman who likes it when her boyfriend sleeps with other women, not because she's happy for him, but because she feels like "she's got a real man" (her words); it changes her perception of him. Now, is this covered by some other term, or does this also fit into Compersion? Or is it just something peculiar about this girl? Might be something to consider, though I obviously can't substantiate it because I'm no expert on the subject. --PheonixSong 18:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Compersion is defined as experiencing joy for someone else because of something good they have (i.e., the opposite of jealousy). So, that wouldn't be compersion. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I would have to disagree with saying that’s not compersion. In that situation most people who would experience jealousy would definitely be jealous. She is definitely reacting in a manner opposite of jealousy. Even the statment: "Compersion can be said to be a form of empathy; i.e. pleasure that a loved one is experiencing a good thing in his or her life." would define her situation. She is experiencing a positive feeling to what I would expect her Boyfriend would consider a good thing. By the definition given, that senareo fits. Even if her explination is that she feel like that makes him a "real man", she also said she likes the feeling. If thats still not compersion then the definition does need to be revised.

[edit] Unencyclopedic

I don't know for sure, but maybe the topic is encyclopedic. As it stands, the article is just a fairly complete dicitonary entry. It already appears in wiktionary. DCDuring 00:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I vote against deletion. Hermitage 16:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I also believe this should be an entry and might be compared to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schadenfreude (which is interestingly not linked to the emotion framework). I'll note that i came to the Wikipedia to check on more details about the term. --198.144.208.168 06:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
I vote against deletion. While this entry is mostly definitional, the concept is potentially encyclopedic and the article is a useful start to that. Paxuscalta (talk) 07:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PROD

I removed a PROD tag because if the article is proposed for deletion, it needs the full discussion that would be brought about by an AFD. But it might be well to make a further effort for additional sourcing. . I would personally imagine the concept is discussed as well as the word, but I know the literature on this sort of topic is difficult to find, so I have added a "moresources" tag. Those who support the article, consider it a challenge. DGG (talk) 10:31, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the reasoning in the first sentence above. You removed the tag because it would have provided the discussion you say is needed? That would be like a store taking the sign down to get more business. Can I use that reasoning elsewhere in WP? DCDuring 14:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
A PROD means the article will automatically gets deleted. I presume he means that this article should only be deleted after a full discussion on AfD (and I agree). He didn't take a sign down, he put one (or rather, two) up. Mdwh 16:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Compare to "Mudita"

mudita is an ancient Pali word meaning something like "sympathetic joy", or joy at the joy of others, or the opposite of Schadenfruede. I went ahead and added it to the See Also: section since the Mudita article already cross-links back to compersion. It may also be worth looking at the "mudita" entry to see ways in which the "compersion" entry might or might not need to be expanded in order to avoid being "unencyclopedic". Can someone help with etymology and the place of "compersion" within academic psychological frameworks? Or a bit of a historical thread; i'm sure that "compersion" is not the first English-language attempt at a word, phrase, or expressed-concept to mean "the opposite of romantic jealousy". I can hardly imagine that Shakespeare or Wordsworth didn't tackle the theme, for example. --Ajasen (talk) 00:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Etymology?

What's the etymology of the word? Anyone able to trace it's first usage? And sorry, if schadenfreude isn't on the list of emotions, then 'compersion' is a lot more minimal than that. It's just a subset of the complement to schadenfreude 'happiness caused by the happiness of others' which doesn't actually exist in common usage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.78.114 (talk) 04:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

"schaudenfreude" and its opposites are general. This is related to sexual jealousy specifically--as the opposite. I think some of the skepticism to this concept is based on a feeling that there is no actual alternative to sexual jealousy. DGG (talk) 15:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Uh, that's a little supercilious.
I am polyamorous, and the reason I am so, is more than any need for multiple partners myself (although I have), but because I've never felt jealousy in a specifically sexual context, and therefore feel no need to limit my partners in who they love. And in them doing so, I have, indeed, felt happy for them. Now we've gotten my unneeded and utterly anonymous qualifications out of the way -
I still have issues with the word 'Compersion' being included in the emotions template. Y'know the 'no original research', and NPOV thing for Wikipedia?
It means that we document things as we are, not as we'd like, and when it comes down to it, Compersion isn't in common usage as a common emotion. There's only two news results available on Google news, and they actually appear to be drawn from Wikipedia, not the other way around.
Hell, it's not in my spell-checker.
As a definition for a use in a certain subculture (and not , it barely scrapes by (ie better suited to wiktionary), but putting it in the emotions template seems slightly promotional. - 121.73.78.114 (talk) 08:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)