Talk:Empathic mimicry

Great layout

I think this page looks really good. It's definitely a good layout for mimicry, and can be adapted easily if we decide to do any other pages. Fantastic move! - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 16:03, 7 December 2006 (EST)

Examples

The points made in the list of examples about Mohinder's and Claude's comments are not really examples. But they are still on-show revelations about the nature of Peter's ability. Should they be moved to notes?--E rowe 23:27, 29 January 2007 (EST)

I've tried to address Peter's visions in the article. Let me know what you guys think; we can revert if it doesn't seem appropriate. --Ted C 09:39, 31 January 2007 (EST)

Not his power!

There is no way that Peter's power is Empathy! If he is an empath he would have felt great pain around people in pain, etc. Empathy is the ability to sense emotions on a psychic level, not mimic powers. Please consider changing it to Power Mimcry or Mimcry.--The Empath 23:53, 29 January 2007 (EST)

• Well, where did you get that definition of the power of empathy? Because, AFAIK, super powers don't exist in the real world. So the terms and definitions heroeswiki uses for them should match the terms and definitions from the show itself as much as possible. Do you have evidence from the show that his power is not empathy?--E rowe 23:56, 29 January 2007 (EST)
  • I think Empath is more of a description of a person with Peter's power than a description of the power itself. I agree that the power should be called Power Mimicry until we know exactly how the rest of it figures in. --Fcphantom 00:02, 30 January 2007 (EST)
    • I think there's a lot more to Peter's power than just mimicking other powers. His visions indicate that he connects with other characters on other levels, as well. Power mimicry is just one consequence of Peter's empathic abilities, and I've rewritten the article to reflect what we're learning. I'm also using the only term for his power that has been used in the show (unless you'd prefer I call it "Sponging" :) --Ted C 11:57, 30 January 2007 (EST)
      • Or "mosaic". My only real concern is that it's not 100% clear that Claude was referring to Peter's power, and not to Peter's personality. That, and the fact that "empathy" already has a pretty well established non-superpower meaning (not to mention an all-together different superpower meaning ... he's not Deanna Troi!) make me think it's a less-than-complete label which tends to lead to confusion. We certainly don't have to be bound by other definitions of "empathy", but we ignore them at the peril of being confusing. Heck, I'm still not 100% comfortable with "Eidetic memory", since an eidetic memory is a very real, very non-superpowered thing. It seems to me the move is either premature or not specific enough, but I'm not sure of other options. I agree "empathic power mimicry" is too restrictive. Howabout something like "Empathic resonance"? We need something that makes enough of a distinction from plain old personality trait empathy (and traditional superhero empathy) without being too specific so as to lock us into an unexplored corner.--Hardvice (talk) 12:57, 30 January 2007 (EST)

I have done alot of research on comic book powers and the desrciption of empathy is like I said. Here is a link to a page that has all the comic book powers1. Read the one on Empathy and Power Mimicry. And yes, the evidence is that Peter himself stated that he mimics powers not that he can read emotions. FYI, Evidence of Empathy portrayed accurately on TV would be Charmed Season 3 episode "Primrose Empath" and most of Charmed Season 6.--The Empath 00:04, 30 January 2007 (EST)

• That wikipedia article on comic book powers and the Charmed episode both have nothing to do with Heroes. And we don't just have the label Claude used, we also have comments from people associated with the show off screen. I don't see anything wrong with using either label for now and having a redirect from the other one. But letting non-Heroes sources trump Heroes sources for defining elements of Heroes won't work.--E rowe 10:04, 30 January 2007 (EST)
  • And you're the official word on this because why? As a more "real world" definition, try the Webster's Dictionary: "meta" = beyond, ie "metahuman" = beyond human. --Yoshie 17:24, 30 January 2007 (EST)
    • I get the impression E rowe wasn't referring to the WP article on "metahuman", but the WP article that's a list of superpowers. Let's try to keep it civil.--Hardvice (talk) 17:29, 30 January 2007 (EST)
    • No need to be harsh, here... Metahuman is not a real word (though it makes a lot of sense). Here at Heroes Wiki, we've been using "evolved humans". It's all made up by fans, anyway. And we need to remember that Tim Kring has made it very public that he is not a "comic book guy", and purposely stays away from the genre so he remains unaffected by popular comic book themes and ideas. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 17:35, 30 January 2007 (EST)
      • Well, the show's fiction, so the "real word" argument doesn't really apply. I'm all for going with the majority on what we're going to call the abilities since that's who should be making the overall decision. So if it's "evolved humans", then cool!--Yoshie 20:16, 30 January 2007 (EST)
  • I have a real problem calling Peter's power "empathy". Empathy is a character trait, not a superpower. If we want to include empathy in the title of his power, that's fine (maybe something like "emapathetic power mimicry"), but just calling it "empathy" is really misusing the term, in my opinion. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 11:03, 30 January 2007 (EST)
• Is there a reson why we can't assume that Claude was refering to Peter's wanting to save everyone as his "empathy" rather than his ability, of which Claude knows almost nothing (and thus would likely not try to define just yet)?- Yoshie (talk) 11:08, 30 January 2007 (EST)
  • I gathered that Claude already knows more about Peter's power than Peter does. His empath line wasn't the only clue to that. I agree that the word "empathy" by itself has a normal meaning that does not connote any kind of super power. But I think the normal canons of data should dictate how each of the powers is defined. One of the ways his power resembles the character trait of empathy is that, thus far it has been passively stimulated by those around him. This is something that the word "empathy" entails and the word "mimicry" does not. I do think a more precise term like "empathetic power mimicry" is a really good way to cover the bases too.
    • Good ideas for names ... but I think we should just go back to "Power mimicry" until we find out more about how empathy plays into his power. Claude is bound to teach him, and we're bound to learn more about it - let's just wait. In the meantime, let's go back to micicry - that's still, technically, what it is. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 13:02, 30 January 2007 (EST)

Ok, I know that Charmed has nothing do to with Heroes but those episodes are acurrate portayals of Empathy. Also, the power in this show are based on comic book type powers. Claude was probably refering to the regualar meaning of Empathy not the super powered meaning. I suggest that, let's have a vote to change the name back to Mimicry or to keep it the same.--The Empath 15:47, 30 January 2007 (EST)

Whoa - we need to realize that there's no such thing as an accurate portayals of a power, since, well, they don't exist in real life. Plus, we need to remember that Tim Kring has stated he's never really read comic books, and doesn't know much about the world of comics. Referencing other comics and shows about the supernatural is really quite a pointless argument. ... Okay, sorry for the rant, I just want to keep us grounded. That said, I vote to change it back to power mimicry until we find out more about how empathy factors in. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 15:51, 30 January 2007 (EST)

• I tend to agree. We're not bound by how any show or source but Heroes does things (look at Matt's telepathy versus most other depictions of telepathy). That said, I also think that while it's clear that empathy factors in to Peter's power, it's not a very good name for his power.--Hardvice (talk) 15:57, 30 January 2007 (EST)

I won't fight to keep it right now, but I seriously think that mimicry is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg, here. --Ted C 15:55, 30 January 2007 (EST)

• I totally agree: more is going on. But more is going on than "normal" empathy. Too soon to say with any certainty.--Hardvice (talk) 15:57, 30 January 2007 (EST)

• Empathy covers part of it and mimicry covers part of it, but neither covers it all. At least one definition of telepathy would cover both, but then Matt and Peter would have the same power, which they defiantly don't. Matt's could be telepathic communication and Peter's telepathic connection, but that would be confusing. -Level 16:35, 30 January 2007 (EST)
  • I wasn't suggesting we change his power to telepathy. I was pointing out an example of where Heroes powers deviate significantly from other source's powers.--Hardvice (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2007 (EST)
    • I know you weren't, I kind of was, but not really. I meant Peter's powers fit some definitions of telepathy, and Matt's fits the current most common definition, but not the original (we probably don't want to change his power though, unless it was something like Telecommunication ;) -joke). I was also trying to come up with a better name. Maybe "Remote adaptation" or something like that? -Level 17:14, 30 January 2007 (EST)

Proximity

Anyone catch how far Peter was from Claude when he reappeared? Seems we now know the "range" of Peter's sponging ability (at least the automatic side).--Yoshie 12:54, 30 January 2007 (EST)

• Also note the use of the word "sponge". It makes me think that Peter's power is a power-storage mechanism that charges up the longer he stays in contact with someone else w/ powers. Which makes me wonder if he got sick because he "charged up" being too close to Sylar, Claire, Nathan (and Mr. Bennet) in Odessa. And with a charge, there is a storage and discharge. One of the theories is he still retains pieces of the powers of everyone he has ever been in contact with... --Orne 17:30, 30 January 2007 (EST)

Votes

Change to Mimicry

1. The Empath 15:58, 30 January 2007 (EST)
2. Hardvice (talk) 16:14, 30 January 2007 (EST)
3. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2007 (EST)

Keep it Empathy

1. Ted C 16:04, 30 January 2007 (EST)

Comments

• unless we can come up with a better option ... both are underinclusive--Hardvice (talk) 16:14, 30 January 2007 (EST)
• You could always go with option "C", which would fit the narrow POV I'm reading above. Until each power is specifically named in canon, why not call them "power to copy other powers" or "power to control fire". It's pretty lame BUT goes along with what was stated a half-dozen times above. If you plan to only go by what is stated in canon, then you should go in 100%.--Yoshie 17:29, 30 January 2007 (EST)
  • I think you're missing the point they're trying to make (and please keep in mind that I agree with you): it's not that we should ignore other sources, it's that we're not bound by them. I agree with that completely -- some powers in Heroes are quite different from similar powers in other works. I don't think anybody's suggesting that we should flat-out refuse to label powers until they're labeled in canon (and if you honestly think anyone is saying that, then you're being deliberately obtuse). I think they're suggesting that canon sources should outweigh non-canon sources, which is true. I think "induced radioactivity" sounds pretty stupid, but we're stuck with it. That said, I don't think we've heard Peter's power referred to as empathy in the show, so the argument, while valid, is in my opinion not relevant. In the absence of a canon name for it, we should call it something that covers what we've seen without implying too much that we don't know. In my opinion, neither "Power mimicry" nor "empathy" really cuts it, but "power mimicry" is at least underinclusive, while "empathy" is downright misleading—yes, based on non-canon sources.--Hardvice (talk) 17:42, 30 January 2007 (EST)
• I say change it to mimicry until we receive more info. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2007 (EST)
  • And soon. It bothers me on so many levels that grown adults are getting worked up to the point of sniping at each other over the fictional name of a fictional character's fictional superpower. Can't we all just get along?--Hardvice (talk) 17:47, 30 January 2007 (EST)
    • LOL thats why I started this vote and i'm a teenager not an adult. But you can call me a "young adult" (sound better). :-)--The Empath 18:11, 30 January 2007 (EST)
    • We'd all get along if only we all had more power mimicry empathy for each other. :) - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 18:28, 30 January 2007 (EST)
      • I vote for power mimicry! Heroe 18:57, 30 January 2007 (EST)
  • I really have no preference for how we should name the ability, as I think both of the above names fit well. It might do well to leave it at least until next week however, when it looks like Claude will be giving Peter's ability a thorough test-drive.. and us a better insight into what exactly it's capable of.--Yoshie 20:18, 30 January 2007 (EST)
• I pretty much agree that it stretches the ordinary meaning of "empathy" too much to use it as the name of a super power. But I think it could be used with a modifier (Eg. It's not enough to call Spleen's power "flatulence" in Mystery Men; but "superordinary flatulence" just might cover it). Tim Kring said Peter's power was based on his empathy here. And I can't see Claude's comment as a reference to anything other than Peter's ability (apparently I'm in the minority on that). So, if the power name doesn't account for these points, at least something in the description should. And there should probably be a redirect from "empathy" to whatever his power is.--E rowe 22:08, 30 January 2007 (EST)
  • I'm with you on both accounts, that it's based on empathy, and that a form of the word "empathy" should probably qualify the power. I don't think anybody is saying that Claude was referring to something completely different, but (speaking for myself now) he never did say it was the name of the power. In the end, it's a character trait. It's a trait that Peter uses to access his power, or augment it, or whatever. ... And a redirect will be automatic when the page is moved. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2007 (EST)
  • Just rewatched the episode, and to add fuel to the fire, Mohinder calls it mimicking. So we have Claude calling him an empath and Mohinder calling him a mimic. Maybe we should just go with "Empathic mimicry"? :) --Hardvice (talk) 00:21, 31 January 2007 (EST)
    • Yes, yes. Just change it and be done with it :) ... (or we could have another vote? hehehe.) - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:25, 31 January 2007 (EST)
      • We should change it to something really awful, like "Loretta Lynn manipulation", and see if we can get people's heads to explode.--Hardvice (talk) 00:27, 31 January 2007 (EST)
        • Loretta Lynn — man, you are like the king of non sequiturs. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 01:17, 31 January 2007 (EST)
          • I can see it now: "Peter Petrelli possesses the superhuman ability to control fluffy-haired old-school female country-and-western singers. The exact limits of his power are unknown; to date, he has only been able to affect Loretta Lynn, but it's possible he may also be able to affect Tammy Wynette."--Hardvice (talk) 01:21, 31 January 2007 (EST)
• Does anybody else think "mimicry" implies a deliberate action on Peter's part? Wouldn't something like "power conformity" reflect the passive aspect better? It would also incorporate the aspect of his empathy more smoothly.
  • I kind of prefer "power absorption", but that's what we were originally calling Sylar's power theft - changing it would require a bunch of manual edits. Ugh. - RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 22:20, 30 January 2007 (EST)