A counsellor's ethical question about “tactical empathy” in the context of Netflix show Rabbit, Rabbit, and how much luck has to do with success

Screenshot and info from: https://www.netflix.com/tudum/articles/rabbit-rabbit-series-adam-driver-release-date-photos-news  

A counsellor's ethical question about “tactical empathy” in the context of new Netflix show Rabbit, Rabbit, and how much luck has to do with success

by Jen Davies, nerd

Nov 1, 2025

Note1: I'm curious to see how this show treats the science here, because the announcement very specifically decided to include a social scientific element (“tactical empathy”).

Note2: There are likely more experienced ethicists in the field of counselling who can speak to this issue, that these communication skills were not identified and fine-tuned in order to be used for “tactical” purposes, but I don't remember finding much written about this when Chris Voss’ Masterclass came out. Maybe there have been things written since then. If not, I'm happy to muse further! Let me know if that's of interest. 

The name Chris Voss will almost certainly come up sooner rather than later in the context of the new Netflix show Rabbit, Rabbit that was announced this week. The announcement happened to cross my feed because my browser cookies are saturated with Adam Driver as a result of a recent dive into his filmography and interviews. I wrote an essay on that too.

Chris Voss is a former FBI hostage negotiator, and his expertise is fairly well known. He also happens to be able to explain his field of work very effectively, and his Masterclass on negotiation using “tactical empathy” is easy to understand. I've watched it, it seemed valuable for someone who may be new to the idea of communicating with empathy. As a counsellor I practice empathy and the skills associated with communicating it all day - and I do not apply them “tactically” (or do I?) nor do I do hostage negotiation! Well, maybe in a way I do - I will explain. Chris also emphasizes that these are skills and they can be learned - I agree, because I teach them to future counsellors. And if empathy is a skill that can be learned, then luck is actually what happens when preparation meets the right situation. 

Empathy and whether it's ever (or ever not) tactical 

Let's start with what empathy is, and what it looks like in regular kinds of communication (not formal hostage negotiation). First let's separate empathy from sympathy. Sympathy is, I feel sorry for you. Empathy is, I feel this thing with you. Can you feel the difference? Sympathy is looking down at someone from a place of privilege, that you don't have to experience the discomfort or pain of the person you're observing. Empathy is being beside the person experiencing discomfort or pain, and sitting in the discomfort with them, letting the feeling become part of you too (though you can choose how much so). It is a very effective and essential element of counselling work, because when a helping professional (remember that term) can show that we are with you and we are curious and trying to understand you with no judgment then it's easier to do something about your feelings. Remember the lack of judgment - that's the key to the ethical problem.

The “tactical empathy” embedded in the premise of Rabbit, Rabbit as a hostage-taking story is almost certainly that which has been most famously implemented by Chris Voss. The FBI and other policing services are sometimes categorized as helping professionals, but it depends on who's doing the categorizing. Social workers, nurses, teachers - they are easy to group among helping professionals, but police of whatever type are not always a help, depending on who you are. That is not the focus of this essay. The key is in the idea of helping. Empathetic communication implies the idea of a patient and non-judgmental stance toward helping to relieve the discomfort or pain, and police forces by default are not non-judgmental observers. At a minimum, they are looking for obvious breaches of frequently broken laws like speed limits on roads, and relieving distress might happen as a tangent but it isn't their goal. In a hostage situation, they are already aware that a threat of violence has been made and could be carried out unless a successful intervention to prevent the violence is made - there is necessarily judgment, and a focus on relieving the hostages of their discomfort, not the hostage-taker.

Chris Voss was an early adopter, maybe one of the originators if I recall correctly, of the idea that instead of breaking down doors or making counter-threats (which led to hostage injuries and deaths in the past) maybe negotiators could understand why hostage-takers had done it and collaborate on finding a way to end the situation without violence. It turns out that Chris' instinct was accurate, and from memory I think he claims that his success rate was very close to 100%. Remember that police are not merely curious parties, though - they have a particular outcome they want to see happen, unlike in counselling situations where our primary goal is always to help a client find a life-promoting course of action for themselves, whatever it may be. We do not plan in advance what it will be. But then, neither do negotiators like Chris Voss - they co-create the solution with the other party, like I do in a counselling setting.

Is what I do really so different from what Chris Voss does? As a hostage negotiator he used curiosity and effective listening skills (like I do) to understand hostage-takers’ perspectives and work out solutions that let the hostages go free, without harm. In other words, those are life-promoting solutions. So is what I do every day something like hostage negotiation? It’s fairly common that a client seeking counseling from me is struggling with incompatible goals or desires - like real hostage-takers are doing. My clients want freedom and they also want XYZ, but they don't see how they can have both. Hostage-takers also don't always know how to get both, without following through on their threats of violence. I think the difference is that a police negotiator is always going to be coming from a stance that the hostage-taker has broken the law, so their position is necessarily judgmental.

Why do counsellors use a non-judgmental stance? We don't have to live with the consequences of whatever decisions our clients make. The only “positions” we typically take are that violence of any kind is unlikely to get the result the client wants in the long-term, and that life is generally better than death because you can re-try living your life differently over and over while dying is the end, no more tries. These basic positions are usually true no matter what model of counselling we are using. I have no training in policing, but I suppose neither of those positions is really antithetical to police work, and might be very much in alignment with hostage negotiation.

But police services necessarily have to uphold the law - they must judge the behaviour they see in many more nuanced respects than those I have described. Counsellors do not judge. Most run-of-the-mill crimes we also would never report because of our oaths of confidentiality to our clients. We certainly discourage theft, property damage, and driving dangerously because those behaviours could have very negative consequences, but only in specific kinds of circumstances would we ever disclose these. Would the necessity of police officers to see breaches of the law prevent them from being empathetic and communicating with empathy? You know, it might not, though of course a hostage-taker would know that they are being understood as having broken the law.

Rabbit, Rabbit, Rabbit - luck or preparation?

Why are we talking about luck? 

According to Wikipedia, superstitious Brits will ensure that their first words on the 1st day of the month are “rabbit, rabbit, rabbit” for good luck all month. I had no idea - thanks, Google, for a new superstition. Apparently people are doing this in North America too lately, and is likely the inspiration for the show's title (in addition to the verb "rabbiting" meaning to flee, which we know Adam Driver's character is doing from the announcement).

Someone who is organized enough in life to remember to wake up on the 1st of every month and say “rabbit, rabbit, rabbit” before anything else is also, as noted, prepared. And there's a good chance that they are conflating the “luck” they perceive with the effective preparation they may be exercising every day. A lot of what people call luck is like that, they just don't see all the little things they are doing differently from "unlucky" people. As a counsellor I get an inside look at good luck and lack of luck daily, and I assure you that most lucky people approach the world differently than those who are unlucky.

In terms of Chris Voss’ “good luck” at resolving hostage situations with the application of “tactical empathy,” as demonstrated by his perfect or near perfect record as I recall… I think he knows just as well as we can see that it isn't about luck. It's about learning the skills for curiosity and listening (communicating with empathy) and applying them with the intention of preventing further violence. The best counsellors I know also aren't really lucky - we are always working on improving our craft.

Empathic understanding requires some honesty - and it's why theatre, TV and movies work

I've heard Chris Voss talk about strategies he uses to assess the level of honesty he believes he is receiving from a hostage-taker because he can only construct his own empathic understanding of their needs if they are somewhat truthful. He doesn't count on being lucky, he has learned how to figure out if he is being lied to.

How much can we expect Adam Driver’s villain to be truthful when we know that a key plot point will be around the use of “tactical empathy” turning into a social experiment? And how well do we even know what we want to be able to share it with someone, even if they're being curious about our wants and needs? Adam usually chooses roles where he portrays someone who is problematic but with whom we can still feel some empathy, so I imagine he will be a compelling hostage-taker (the Netflix announcement says that's his role). The drama seems likely to emerge, from what the two articles I've linked say, from some psychological messing-around that Driver’s villain will engage in with his hostages, and probably with the hostage negotiator. A hostage-taker would be well-advised to collaborate with a negotiator who is using “tactical empathy” because Chris Voss’ purpose in using it was to avoid violence where hostages inevitably get hurt. But what if a villain doesn't seem to understand that, or have the ability to communicate effectively in exchange? Yikes…

I wonder if they are borrowing some high-level vibes from the harrowing episode of the Netflix series Sandman that takes place in a diner. Haven't seen that? Do. It's a great show overall, and that episode is one of the scariest things I've ever seen, psychologically speaking, and part of the reason the diner scenario is so scary is that the people forget their empathy for each other. 

Empathy is why TV, movies, and theatre are effective and connecting with us emotionally, and I wonder if this is one of the reasons Adam decided also to be involved as an executive producer, to get the idea made. Most folks who are fans have seen his TED talk (linked below) in which he explains that acting school gave him the language to describe what had previously been indescribable (feelings) - that experience involves empathy! A useful almost-synonym for empathy is understanding, something that his nonprofit tried to create by bringing modern theatre to military audiences. The actors gained understanding of the military experience, and military members gained understanding of some aspect of shared human experiences through the works performed, which many of them would never otherwise have access to. It seems like sharing what he has gained through art is still on the back of his mind to share.

I get it. Empathy is such a powerful tool even the best police forces and actors use it. Something I have in common with Chris and Adam!

#adamdriver #netflix #rabbitrabbit #chrisvoss #masterclass @empiremagazine.bsky.social @netflix.com

Resources

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit_rabbit_rabbit

And

https://www.masterclass.com/classes/chris-voss-teaches-the-art-of-negotiation/chapters/tactical-empathy

And

https://www.blackswanltd.com/newsletter/when-crisis-strikes-how-to-use-a-tactical-empathy-approach (IMDB says there's a biopic about Chris Voss produced in 2024 if you're interested)

And

https://youtu.be/nCwwVjPNloY?si=R14UwdR47VixgAGD 

And

https://www.empireonline.com/tv/news/adam-driver-set-to-star-in-philip-barantini-hostage-crime-series-rabbit-rabbit/