Add VegOut to your Google News feed. 
You've met both versions.
You've met the person who went through something devastating and came out of it with walls so thick that nothing gets in anymore. They're guarded. They're cynical. They've decided, consciously or not, that the world hurt them once and they won't let it happen again. Their suffering made them harder, and they wear that hardness like armor.
And you've met the other kind. The person who went through something equally devastating, maybe worse, and came out of it softer. More patient. More willing to sit with someone else's pain without trying to fix it or rush past it. The kind of person who makes you feel safe not because they've never been hurt, but because they have been, and they chose to let it open them rather than close them down.
Both responses are understandable. Both are human. But they produce radically different lives. And the research on what separates them is more interesting than most people realize.
What suffering actually does to the brain's capacity for compassion
In 2016, researchers Daniel Lim and David DeSteno at Northeastern University published a study that challenged a common assumption about adversity. Most research on trauma focuses on the damage it causes: depression, anxiety, PTSD, reduced functioning. Lim and DeSteno asked a different question: does experiencing adversity change how you relate to the suffering of others?
Their study, published in the journal Emotion, found that increasing severity of past adversity predicted increased empathy, which in turn was linked to a stable tendency to feel compassion for others in need. And this wasn't just self-reported feeling. It translated into actual behavior. People who had suffered more donated more to charity and were more likely to help a stranger in a laboratory setting.
The mechanism they proposed is elegantly simple. When you suffer, you develop an experiential understanding of what suffering feels like. This isn't intellectual. It's visceral. You know what it's like to be in that place because you've been there. And that knowing, that felt knowledge, makes it harder to look away when someone else is in that place too.
But here's the nuance. The study found that severity of adversity mattered, not frequency or recency. Small, repeated hardships didn't produce the same effect. It was the experiences that genuinely shattered something, that disrupted your understanding of how the world works, that opened the door to deeper compassion.
This suggests that compassion isn't just a personality trait you're born with. It's something that can be forged through experience, specifically through experiences that force you to confront vulnerability in a way that can't be bypassed or intellectualized.
The growth that happens in the wreckage
There's a broader framework for understanding this, and it comes from the work of psychologists Richard Tedeschi and Lawrence Calhoun, who have spent decades studying what they call post-traumatic growth.
Their research identifies five domains in which people frequently report positive psychological change following trauma: a deeper appreciation for life, stronger and more meaningful relationships, an increased sense of personal strength, recognition of new possibilities, and spiritual or existential change.
The domain that's most relevant here is the relational one. People who experience post-traumatic growth consistently report becoming more compassionate, more tolerant, more willing to express emotion, and more capable of genuine intimacy. They describe their relationships as having a deeper emotional quality than before the trauma.
Critically, Tedeschi and Calhoun emphasize that this growth doesn't replace the pain. It coexists with it. People who report the highest levels of post-traumatic growth often also report ongoing distress related to the original trauma. They're not people who "got over it." They're people who were transformed by the struggle with it.
This is the part that gets lost in popular narratives about resilience. Resilience is about bouncing back. Post-traumatic growth is about bouncing forward. It's not returning to who you were before the trauma. It's becoming someone different, someone whose worldview and capacity for connection have been fundamentally altered by what they went through.
Why some people harden instead
If suffering can produce compassion, why does it sometimes produce the opposite?
The research suggests several factors. One is the absence of what Tedeschi and Calhoun call "expert companions," people who can sit with you in the aftermath of trauma without trying to fix it, minimize it, or rush you through it. Without that kind of support, the natural processing that leads to growth gets interrupted, and the default response is protective hardening.
Another factor is how you cognitively engage with the experience. Post-traumatic growth requires what the researchers call "deliberate rumination," the active, intentional process of making meaning from what happened. This is different from the intrusive, repetitive rumination associated with depression. Deliberate rumination is choosing to think about what the experience meant, what it revealed, and how it changed you. Without this processing, the trauma remains a wound rather than becoming a teacher.
And there's a third factor that the research identifies: the trauma has to be severe enough to genuinely disrupt your existing worldview. Minor setbacks don't produce growth because they don't force you to reconstruct your understanding of yourself and the world. It's the events that shatter your assumptions, that make your old story about how life works impossible to maintain, that create the conditions for something new to emerge.
This is why the choice between hardening and softening is so consequential. Both are responses to the same shattering. The person who hardens is trying to reassemble the old worldview with thicker walls. The person who softens is allowing a new worldview to form, one that includes vulnerability, impermanence, and the recognition that everyone is carrying something.
What Buddhism taught me about this
The Buddhist tradition has a name for the quality that emerges when someone allows suffering to open them rather than close them. It's called "karuna," and it's one of the four immeasurable qualities that Buddhist practice aims to cultivate.
Karuna is usually translated as compassion, but it carries a specific connotation that the English word doesn't fully capture. It's not pity. It's not feeling sorry for someone from a position of superiority. It's the recognition that your suffering and their suffering are made of the same material. That what you felt in your darkest moment is what they're feeling in theirs. And that this shared experience of vulnerability is not weakness. It's the foundation of genuine human connection.
The Buddha taught that suffering is universal, not as a pessimistic observation, but as the basis for compassion. If everyone suffers, then everyone deserves kindness. And the people best positioned to offer that kindness are the ones who have suffered enough to know what it actually costs.
I think about this when I consider the people in my life who have been most genuinely kind to me. Not performatively kind. Not kind because they wanted something. Kind in the way that makes you feel seen, understood, held. Without exception, every one of those people has a story. They've been through something. And the something didn't make them bitter. It made them the person you call when things fall apart.
The quietly radical choice
I called it "quietly radical" in the title because I think that's exactly what it is.
Choosing kindness after you've been hurt is radical because it defies the logic of self-preservation. Every instinct tells you to protect yourself. To build walls. To keep people at a distance so they can't reach the parts of you that were damaged. Softening in the aftermath of suffering is counterintuitive in the most literal sense. It runs against the current of your own survival wiring.
And it's quiet because the people who do it rarely announce it. They don't tell you about their trauma as a preamble to their kindness. They just show up. They sit with you. They listen without judgment. They offer the kind of presence that can only come from someone who knows what it's like to need exactly that.
These are the people the title calls "beautiful souls," and I use that phrase deliberately, despite its sentimentality, because I think it's accurate. What makes a soul beautiful isn't the absence of damage. It's the presence of compassion that was earned through damage. It's the scar tissue that became something softer than the original skin.
The research says this isn't random. It's a process. It requires support, deliberate reflection, and a willingness to let the old story die so that a new one can take its place. It's not guaranteed. Not everyone who suffers grows from it. But the ones who do, the ones who let the breaking remake them into someone kinder, are doing something that the research validates and that lived experience confirms as one of the most meaningful transformations a human being can undergo.
I wrote about much of this in my book Hidden Secrets of Buddhism: How To Live With Maximum Impact and Minimum Ego. The book is about the process of letting go of the ego's defenses, the walls we build to protect ourselves, and discovering that the most impactful life isn't the most protected one. It's the most open one. If you've been through something hard and you're trying to figure out what to do with it, the book won't tell you to get over it. It'll tell you to let it change you. Just in the right direction.
