I apologise if this point has already been made - I'm a bit cross-eyed after reading the whole thread in one go. Logically, an empathetic response, as well as a feeling that "normal is good", must have had a specific function in that people who stayed outside the "flock" would have a lower chance of survival because they would not have access to common resources and others' skills, and would also lower others' chance of survival because they would deprive others of their own skills. If you are able to understand what others feel - which is what empathy is all about - it is more likely that you will modify your behaviour to be beneficial to them and not just to yourself. And vice versa, if others are able to understand what you feel. An evolutionary trait, plain and simple.

Personally, I find it both helpful and upsetting when I get a genuinely empathetic response. It's genuinely frightening that somebody might understand how I think and feel. It can still be comforting in a weird way - but the rote "that must have felt x" response is just annoying, both because it feels phony and tired and because it's usually either obviously true or not true at all. And I don't need a T to tell me how something must have felt - I need him to help me understand how something actually felt! Current T hasn't done the rote answer thing, and hopefully won't. Previous Ts did.

And I definitely do not want to be normal... but there is very little risk of that ever happening

OK, I admit that my concept of a "regular conversation" does not conform to this. Possibly because I do not talk about my experiences with people - or when I do, the result usually is not very good.