Its 2020 – I still eat food but have not yet had a 3D printed Ice cream; What research needs to do is to Drive Empathy with People rather than Sympathy for People

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.

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.

“Hope smiles from the threshold of the year to come whispering, “it will be happier”.” – Lord Tennyson, British Poet