It depends on how far your logic goes. If you have sufficient experience with people, you could see the logic solution to your example as avoiding direct proble

It depends on how far your logic goes. If you have sufficient experience with people, you could see the logic solution to your example as avoiding direct problem solving proposals, as you might expect the person to react negatively. Of course, the natural way of achieving the correct response is by "simulating" the other person's emotional state to try to predict the best outcome (which includes their future emotional state) -- this is what I understand people generally mean when talking about empathy, and this is what the article refers as 'Emotional contagion'. However, as the article argues, it shouldn't be the only way. You should in principle be able to build a sufficient model of people's emotions and reactions without having to use your own "emotional engine" and being impacted yourself (which may in turn affect your own capability to make good decisions).