In 2005, the renowned inventor
and futurist Ray Kurzweil predicted that by 2020 it will be possible to consume
nanabots that will be capable of nourishing human body cells. That would mean
that we would no longer need to eat. Having just returned from a holiday in Goa
I can tell you that the famous Goan Sausages continue to be consumed in
copious quantities while the nanabots are still not on the menu.
“The only function
of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable”. John Kenneth
Galbraith
Predictions gone wrong - Every
market researcher knows that making predictions is a difficult task and fraught
with risks. It’s made even more difficult when you throw in factors like
development of the technology, the legislative environment, whether you have an
entrepreneur with the ability to commercialize the technology etc. That’s
probably why futurists prefer round numbers like 2020 or 2025 which are ideally
around a decade out – not too far out but reasonably far out.
So come 2020 and there are plenty
of predictions with expiry dates looming. A leading management consultancy had
predicted that by 2020, 3D printing would spur a second industrial revolution
with print at home food and a range of products including toys. Well this
Christmas I had to make do with toys from “Toys R Us” (its still up and running
in India) since 3D options are not available. And yes, while I continue to
enjoy Ben & Jerry’s Ice cream, I am yet to taste a 3D printed Ice cream. The
failure of 3D printers taking off seems to be attributed to them being not user
friendly. Irrespective, 3D printing is still not leading to a second industrial
revolution.
There are some predictions that
have proven even more woefully off target. In 1967, the American Noble Laureate
Glenn Seaborg predicted that “by the year 2020 it may be possible to breed
intelligent species of animals such as apes that will be capable of performing
manual labor”……….
Missed predictions should not be
taken as a failure. Inventors should absolutely continue to dream of a better
future. Because we don’t have perfectly smart homes or haven't complexly
figured out driver less cars does not mean we never will. Technology has indeed
made rapid progress – just look at the field of medicine and the number of life
threatening diseases from the last century that have now been tamed. Technology
crawls forward at a steady pace – look at the development of mobile phones over
the last 20 years. It is only once in a while that we see a giant leap forward
like the i-phone that then spurs new innovation.
“Predictions are
very difficult. Especially if they are about the future”. – Niels Bohr, Noble
Prize Winning Physicist.
Market Research missed a prediction
- In the last decade, the Market research industry has, quite rightly,
invested a lot of resources (manpower and financial) into adopting the latest
technologies. The industry has made massive progress – look at the adoption of
neuro techniques ranging from EEG to Skin conductance to facial coding to
IAT’s.
Despite all the technology at
play no one predicted two of the biggest global (democratic) political events
of the last decade – Trump and Brexit.
The American society has seen increased inequality over the decades. The average pretax income of the top 10% of Americans has more than doubled since 1980 while that of the bottom 50% has remained flat. This means that four decades of growth has had no impact on the salaries of half the Americans. The American dream of getting ahead is now restricted to the those at the top end of the income ladder who have a 70 percent chance of achieving the dream. On the other hand those at the bottom end of the income ladder have only a 35% chance of doing better than their parents. Back in the 1940’s the chances of getting ahead were not dependent on where you started on the income ladder.
The American society has seen increased inequality over the decades. The average pretax income of the top 10% of Americans has more than doubled since 1980 while that of the bottom 50% has remained flat. This means that four decades of growth has had no impact on the salaries of half the Americans. The American dream of getting ahead is now restricted to the those at the top end of the income ladder who have a 70 percent chance of achieving the dream. On the other hand those at the bottom end of the income ladder have only a 35% chance of doing better than their parents. Back in the 1940’s the chances of getting ahead were not dependent on where you started on the income ladder.
This rising inequality led to a
feeling that the “system was broken” and hence Trump. Ironically, Trump (like
Brexit) is the reduction ad absurdum of a culture that tasks elites with
reforming a system that they themselves created and benefitted from. Just look
at the fact that post the tax changes the 400 riches families paid lower taxes
than the bottom 50% of households.
“…the research
evidence keeps piling up and points strongly to the conclusion that a high
degree of empathy in a relationship is possibly the most potent factors in
bringing about change…” American Psychologist Carl Rogers
Research needs to drive
empathy with people not sympathy for people - I would argue that empathy
with the masses would have helped predict the rise of Trump or Brexit. Research
today helps to generate Sympathy for people. By highlighting the suffering and
angst of people it generates concern and even sadness for their plight. But it
falls short of helping marketers to “feel their feelings”. The problem with
sympathy is that it will result in solutions with “tools that caused the
issues”. To provide real solutions we need empathy with people.
“…the worst slave
owners were those who were kind to their slaves, and so prevented the horror of
the system being realized by those who suffered from it, and understood by
those who contemplated it…” Oscar Wilde
Driving empathy for people
- At its core, empathy requires putting yourself in someone else’s shoes and
feeling their feelings. Psychologists define two kinds of empathy – cognitive
empathy and emotional empathy. Cognitive empathy is about being able to look at
the world through someone else’s eyes – a bit like how an actor visualizes a
character. Emotional empathy on the other hand is about being able to
experience the same emotions as the other person leading to compassion and
subsequent action.
Psychologists have found two
factors that can hinder empathy – (1) pressure and stress which stimulate the
amygdala thus crowding out empathy (2) “rich persons malady” – it is very difficult
for the well to do to understand the feelings of the less well off.
Researchers have extremely busy lives. We can develop cognitive empathy by exploring the world outside the office, observe
people in their natural habitats, try new experiences….. Remember my earlier blog
titled “Long live insights – its now time for outsights” - click here to read.
Emotional empathy is more nuanced
and will require the industry to embrace diversity well beyond the normal dimensions
of gender, age and sexual orientation (though we seem to still struggle with
gender diversity at the upper echelons – see my earlier blog “Is the market
research industry – unconsciously conscious or consciously unconscious of
gender bias” - click here to read). The industry will need to embrace “cognitive diversity” and ensure
we have people from all backgrounds. This is the only way to foster emotional empathy.
Ultimately we must drive empathy with people, not sympathy for people.
Ultimately we must drive empathy with people, not sympathy for people.
“Hope smiles from
the threshold of the year to come whispering, “it will be happier”.” – Lord Tennyson,
British Poet
Very nicely written blog, Vijay :)
ReplyDeleteBrilliant articulation Vijay!!
ReplyDeleteReally like your blog, Vijay!
ReplyDeleteThought provoking indeed!!
ReplyDelete