Against Empathy<\/strong><\/em>\u2019 in which he wages a self-declared \u201canti-empathy crusade\u201d. Bloom argues with evidence, conviction and logic that empathy is bad for you – and us. Empathy, he argues is biased, myopic, and innumerate – often leading to bad decisions, prejudice and dysfunctional behaviour.<\/p>\nIn six chapters and two \u2018interludes\u2019 Against Empathy seeks to cull the sacred cow of empathy with five key evidence-based arguments. But first, Bloom clarifies what empathy is and isn\u2019t. When you feel concern or compassion for someone (e.g. your consumer), that\u2019s not empathy, it\u2019s sympathy. But when you feel (and understand) what they are feeling, that\u2019s empathy. In short; sympathy = \u201cfeeling for\u201d, empathy = \u201cfeeling with\u201d<\/em> <\/strong>(e.g. \u2019I feel your pain\u2019). Bloom also notes that empathy appears to be a whole-brain phenomenon – using affective and cognitive processing – there is no empathy module for mind reading and emotional mirroring.<\/p>\nSo why is empathy bad for us? Surely seeing and feeling the world from the consumer perspective should be a good thing? Well no, apparently.<\/p>\n
\n- Firstly, empathy induces us to identify with the situation, task or challenge of a single person; you can\u2019t shoe-shift into the shoes of multiple people – let alone an entire target market. Seeing and feeling the world from the\u00a0perspective and feelings of one person will be as biased, partial and personal as your own personal perspective. Bloom shows how this can play out perversely in the allocation of resources – empathy means we can be transfixed by\u00a0the plight of a single baby girl stuck in a well (Jessica McClure, Texas, 1987) or missing (Madeleine McCann, 2007), but indifferent to thousands of faceless and preventable deaths. This is known as the \u201cidentifiable victim effect\u201d – and in business when we bring to life the the pain or frustration of a particular consumer – we are moved to alleviate their problem, even if this is not our\u00a0best allocation of limited resources. The upshot is that empathy is innumerate<\/em>, inciting us to focus on the plight of an individual, sometimes at the cost to the many.<\/li>\n
- Secondly, because shoe-shifting requires stepping into the shoes of someone else, empathy can be blind to concerns of future generations who don\u2019t yet have shoes – such as those who may suffer from the consequences of global warming. More generally, empathy leads to the overrating of present costs and benefits and to the underrating of future costs and benefits. This means empathy is not only innumerate, it is also myopic<\/em>.<\/li>\n
- Thirdly, the people we chose to feel empathy tend to reflect our own biases, prejudices and parochial concerns. We find it easy to feel empathy for people we identify with; our neighbours and people like us, but it’s more difficult with strangers. This can make empathy innumerate, myopic and prejudiced<\/em>.<\/li>\n
- Fourthly, empathy can be exploited and used to incite an emotional rather than rational response ; feeling the pain or injustice of another can motivate an emotional, irrational – and even sometimes violent response. Think media images and \u2018human interest\u2019 stories of a particular individual\u2019s plight used to justify war or incite anti-immigrations sentiment. Empathy can be innumerate, myopic, biased and overly emotional<\/em>.<\/li>\n
- Fifthly, whilst empathy can – and does – promote caring, altruism and pro-social business, it can also render our altruistic acts less effective. This is because empathic action is guided by emotional impact, rather than the material impact of what we do. For example, CSR initiatives involving many charities may be emotionally rewarding (helping lots of different people), but processing costs make scattergun CSR less effective than partnering with a single\u00a0cause. Moreover, there can be a selfish dimension to empathic care; when we feel the pain or frustration of our consumer – we act to reduce our own pain or frustration that we experience vicariously – rather than out of care for the consumer. So not only is empathy innumerate, myopic, biased, emotional, empathy can be ineffective<\/em> and sometimes selfish<\/em> as well.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
Against Empathy ends with the conclusion that empathy is a thoroughly bad compass for making choices and informing decisions, particularly those with a moral dimension. What Bloom suggests we should do is jettison empathy altogether, and replace it with what he dubs \u201crational compassion\u201d. Rational compassion involves a objective, logical analysis of costs and benefits, with a sympathetic but detached and dispassionate concern for the wellbeing of others. Only by removing our emotional involvement with consumers can we make rational decisions about how to best meet their needs.<\/p>\n
The Brand Genetics Take<\/h3>\n
For fans of empathy techniques in\u00a0identifying business opportunities, Against Empathy is a curiously compelling read. Bloom identifies real weaknesses in\u00a0being an \u201cEmpath\u201d, and we need to be aware of these limitations. But in a world of Big Data, where decisions are increasingly de-humanised and informed by spreadsheets rather than people, do we really want to emulate AI, algorithms and robots? We can\u2019t out-AI AI, but what we can do is play to our human strengths and become more human, more empathic and in doing so see what AI can\u2019t (yet<\/em>) – the experiential and emotional reality of our fellow humans. Empathy has the power to make the experience of others observable and salient to us, and in doing so empathy\u00a0can reveal opportunities that may be invisible to algorithmic\u00a0logic.<\/p>\nTo be fair, Bloom is not always against empathy, he just wants less of it involved in our decisions – particularly those of a moral kind. But by focusing on the affective – emotional – dimension of empathy rather than the cognitive – perspective-taking – dimension, Bloom\u00a0creates an empathic straw man. Cognitive empathy is part of our social intelligence, and perspective-taking may even be pre-requisite to collaboration and cooperation. The two facets of empathy – cognitive and affective – work together and are like two halves of an archway, each supporting each other to see the world through an arched doorway from the perspective of the other; without both sides of the arch, the doorway collapses and there is nothing to see. Quantitative analysts are keen on the quip \u201cin God we trust, all others bring data\u201d, but as card carrying Empaths, we’re with Henry Ford on this –\u00a0in humans we trust, because we bring empathy.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/Against-Empathy.jpg\")
<\/p>\n