I don't think he captured what empathy is. What he says honestly aligns more closely with sympathy by my understanding.

Sympathy involves understanding and feeling sorry for someone's situation, while empathy goes a step further, involving the ability to share and understand the emotions of another person. It's almost always a one on one connection. You're putting yourself in their shoes, personally.

Sympathy often includes a desire to offer solutions or assistance, while empathy is primarily about understanding and sharing emotions. Donating to a charity for the blind out of a sense of feeling sorry for them aligns more with sympathy, as it involves a compassionate response and a potential desire to provide support or solutions without necessarily fully understanding the blind individuals' emotional experiences. It's even less empathetic if you're primarily doing it to feel good. I would personally classify it as altruism or personal fulfilment based on sympathy for their suffering.

I do agree with the general point that you can usually get more done if you pick a lane, I just don't think the fact that people don't pick a lane, because they want to feel good for helping many different causes, is based on misguided empathy. And I think it's wrong to argue empathy is bad based on this premise.

Lastly, even if I'm entirely wrong and it is empathy, he's only arguing against empathy being bad on a societal level. That does not mean it's bad on a one on one level such as when talking to a friend, family member or partner. Arguing that ALL empathy is bad just because using empathy to make decisions on "how best to help the world" is bad is incredibly inaccurate.