 |
|
|
|||||
For years, philosophers and psychologists have debated whether empathy helps or hinders the ways people decide how to help others. Critics of empathy argue that it makes people care too narrowlyfocusing on individual stories rather than the broader needs of societywhile careful reasoning enables more impartial, evidence-based choices. Our new research, forthcoming in the academic journal PNAS Nexus, a flagship peer-reviewed journal of the National Academy of Sciences, suggests this heart versus head argument is too simple. Empathy and reasoning arent rivalsthey work together. Each one on its own predicts more generous, far-reaching acts of assistance. And when they operate side by side, people tend to help in the fairest waysnot favoring some over othersand in ways that touch the most lives. We studied two groups that regularly help others at personal cost. One consisted of living organ donors who gave kidneys to strangers. The other included effective altruists, who use evidence and logic to direct substantial portions of their income or careers toward causes that save the most lives per dollar, such as fighting extreme poverty or preventable illness. All participants completed survey measures of empathyessentially, how much they care about and are moved by others suffering. They also completed survey measures of reasoning. These assess how often people slow down, reflect, and think through things before deciding what to do. We also examined how these abilities related to a range of altruistic judgments and behaviors, from hypothetical choicessuch as deciding whether to help a close friend or a distant strangerto real-world donations. On average, organ donors scored higher on empathy, and effective altruists scored higher on reflective reasoningslowing down and thinking things through. But across all participants, both traits were linked to broader, more outward-looking helping. People with either an elevated heart or head, and especially those with both, when compared with average adults, tended to support distant others and focus on helping as many people as possible. Even among organ donors, whose empathic ability is far above that of average adults, empathy did not make them biased toward those who were close or familiar. When we measured their altruistic judgments and real-world donations, they were just as likely as average adults, and sometimes even more likely, to favor causes that saved the greatest number of lives. These patterns challenge the assumption that empathy can narrow moral concern. In practice, we found, empathy can broaden it. Why it matters Relying on reason alone isnt enough to inspire people to help strangers. [Photo: Julia M. Cameron/Pexels] Many of todays most urgent problemspoverty, climate change, global healthdepend on motivating people to care about strangers and to use limited resources effectively. Appeals to empathy alone may inspire giving, but not necessarily the most effective giving. Appeals to reason alone can leave people unmoved, as often facts and numbers dont stir anyone to care. Our findings suggest that the most powerful approach may be to pair empathys motivation with reasonings direction. Empathy provides the emotional sparka reminder that others suffering matters. Reasoning helps steer that motivation toward where help will have the greatest impact. Together, they encourage helping that is both compassionate and consequential. Whats next Future research needs to determine how empathy and reasoning can be strengthened in everyday decision-making. Could emotional stories paired with clear evidence about what works best help people choose actions that do the most good? We also dont yet know whether people who focus their giving beyond the boundaries of their immediate social circles, like effective altruists, pay any social cost for doing soperhaps by inadvertently signaling less investment in close others. Promisingly, early evidence from organ donors shows that those who help strangers often maintain strong, stable relationships with their closest friends and family members. Perhaps most importantly, researchers need to rethink how altruism is understood. Psychology lacks a clear framework for explaining how empathy and reasoning work together, for whom they work best, and the situations where they come apart. Developing that kind of model would reshape how we think about helpingwhen helping expands, when it stalls, and why. While such core questions remain, the present findings offer reason for optimism. The Research Brief is a short take on interesting academic work. Kyle Fiore Law is a postdoctoral research scholar in sustainability at Arizona State University. Brendan Bo O’Connor is an associate professor of psychology at the University at Albany, State University of New York. Stylianos Syropoulos is an assistant professor of psychology at Arizona State University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Category:
E-Commerce
Most entrepreneurs are familiar with diminishing returns: how, when other variables stay constant, at some point putting in additional time and effort results in increasingly smaller results. Since resources are always limited, figuring out where to spend your entrepreneurial time so it delivers the best bang per hour is critical. That same premise extends to health and fitness. If youre like many entrepreneurs, you try to stay reasonably fit not just because its good for you, but because exercise helps you perform better under stress. Can elevate your mood for up to 12 hours. Can even make you a little smarter. Still: how healthy and fit . . . is healthy and fit enough? If you want to run a marathon, your definition of fit will differ from most. But if you want to compare yourself with other people and see where you currently standand, more important, get a sense of where you would like to standhere are three simple tests you can do at home. If you fall in the average range, thats good. If you fall closer to the excellent range, thats greatand may be a sign that doing more in an attempt to increase your score might push you into the land of diminishing returns. So with all that said, here are the three tests. Lower Body Strength To conduct this test, find a chair that, when you sit on it, puts your thighs at a 90-degree angle to your lower legs. Then put your hands on your hips, lower yourself until your bottom grazes the chair, and then straighten back up. Then do as many reps as you can, without resting, until you run out of (leg) gas. Heres a graph so you can see where you stand. (All images are courtesy of research scientist Schalk Cloete; for more, check out his deep dive into the subject.) Want to be able to do more? Like many things, increasing the number of squats you can do is just a matter of time and effort: do four or five sets of squats to failure three times a week, and in three weeks youll definitely be stronger. And with a great outcome: squats can strengthen your lower body and core, improve your flexibility, and reduce your risk of injury. Upper Body Strength The American College of Sports Medicine recommends using a pushup test to assess upper body strength and endurance. To do pushups their way, start at the top, go down to the 90-degree mark, and push back up without locking out at the top. Women can do plank-version pushups or modified (from the knees) pushups. Then just count how many you can do in one set. (A few couple-second rest breaks at the top are okay.) Heres the results graph: Comparing yourself with others provides a reasonable sense-check. But also keep this in mind: a Harvard study shows that men (unsure why they didnt include women) who could do 40 or more pushups were 96% less likely to experience a cardiovascular event than those who could only do 10 or less. In fact, pushup capacity was more strongly associated with reduced cardiovascular disease risk than aerobic capacity. So if you want to increase the number of pushups you can do, heres a simple process you can follow (scroll down to How many pushups do you want to do?). Do that routine three times a week for 10 minutes, and after three weeks youll definitely be stronger. Cardiovascular Fitness Since there are a variety of ways to evaluate cardiovascular fitness, this ones a little trickier. There are stress tests. Exertion/heart rate tests. Whether you can run a mile, and if so how fast you can run it, is a valid test. Another is VO2 max, the maximal volume of oxygen that can be inhaled and absorbed by a body. Generally speaking, the higher your VO2 max, the btter your cardiovascular fitness (within genetic reason, of course.) One way to estimate your VO2 max is to use a fitness calculator like this. Answer a few questions and youll learn your expected VO2 max (based largely on things like age) and your estimated VO2 max (based on activity levels, resting hear rate, and waist size.) Or you do the one-mile walk test as described here. Then see how you stack up: There are a number of ways to improve your cardiovascular fitness. Walking (briskly) is a great start. So is jogging. So is cycling, rowing, elliptical training . . . or if you want to double-dip and get some strength gains at the same time, consider doing HIIT workouts. Research shows that 11 (intense) minutes a day can make a meaningful difference. Which is where diminishing returns come into play. If you want to enjoy the benefits of reasonablenot extreme, just reasonablefitness, you dont have to spend hours on a treadmill. You dont have to spend hours at the gym. You just need to do a few key things that make a big impact . . . and then do them consistently. Which is surely the same approach you take to running your business. Jeff Haden This article originally appeared on Fast Companys sister publication, Inc. Inc. is the voice of the American entrepreneur. We inspire, inform, and document the most fascinating people in business: the risk-takers, the innovators, and the ultra-driven go-getters that represent the most dynamic force in the American economy.
Category:
E-Commerce
While digital live shopping has been popular for years in Asia, the phenomenon has only recently begun to take off in the U.S., thanks in large part to the rise of retail disruptor Whatnot. The platforms cofounder and CEO, Grant LaFontaine, shares how his team has managed to evoke the feel of in-person shopping inside an online experience, and how Whatnots breakthrough is influencing other retailers and brands. LaFontaine also digs into the startups response to deep-pocketed rivals like eBay, and why he believes the viral Labubu trend is here to stay. This is an abridged transcript of an interview from Rapid Response, hosted by former Fast Company editor-in-chief Robert Safian. From the team behind the Masters of Scale podcast, Rapid Response features candid conversations with todays top business leaders navigating real-time challenges. Subscribe to Rapid Response wherever you get your podcasts to ensure you never miss an episode. Whatnot has seen some real dramatic growth this year in the top 15 among free apps in the App Store, and No. 2 in shopping apps. For listeners who haven’t spent time on Whatnot or taken part in live shopping, can you explain a little bit about what the experience is like? People often make the comparison to a digital QVC. Yeah, I started thinking about it a little bit differently. To me, live shopping is the best in-store shopping experience, but online. So, a lot of the people who are on Whatnot have either had their own brick-and-mortar shops or they’re streaming all the time. It’s like welcoming you into their store. So, you tap into their livestream. You’ll see a bunch of the inventory they have. You’ll see people in there. You can chat with the person, ask them questions about the product. I sort of view it as the shift of experiential commercenot just in a brick-and-mortar world, but bringing it online. Part of the Whatnot experience is … it’s almost like it’s entertainment on your phone too, right? I mean, the best sellers have to be engaging hosts. Do you train new sellers about how to be effective in live selling? You don’t have to be the world’s best entertainer to put on a good show, because what people value can be really different. The shopping experience itself is entertaining. The people that you can talk to are entertaining. It is a format that I think any seller or anyone who has a business can get advantage from. You’ll see a lot of the same people. You can chat with them. It’s like, maybe you go to your local bakery or your local pub, and you sort of know the people who frequent it. And you know the host, and you have a relationship with them. It even carries over to extremes. There’s a trend on Whatnot called Bless the Chat, and people will buy gifts and giveaways to have people who are just hanging out in the shows win. And it’s completely funded by the audience. And if you go into any of the big shows, it’s actually very, very common. Your team told me that while you use AI in the back-end for efficiency and other things, that you only consider deeper AI in the customer experience if it really solves customer issues. As a CEO today, do you feel pressure to be using AI maybe more than you need to be? Yeah, I think absolutely. I think one of the most inherent human characteristics is that there’s always some pressure by looking at other people and feeling like you need to do what they’re doing. If you’re in tech these days, you probably can’t go more than a one-hour-long period of time without hearing about something in AI. And so I think it makes you constantly question whether you’re doing the right things. Now, the truth with every new technology is, it either solves a problem or it doesn’t. And if it doesn’t solve a problem, no one’s going to use it, so it doesn’t matter. So I think, despite all of the noise, we try and stay relatively grounded. We’re not doing AI for AI’s sake. I’m curious whether there are any trends that you see on the platform about where collectibles are going. Are there any predictions about what might be hot next? I think people have always viewed collectibles as niche markets, but what we’re seeing is that those markets are getting much bigger. Historically, when you look at collectibles markets and you think about the Beanie Baby that had this meteoric rise and meteoric fall. That’s what happens in collectibles. If you look across our collectibles business, we’re 6 years old now, and I don’t think it’s ever grown under 100% a year. I think in a world where everything’s sort of mass-produced, very digital, I think having unique things and being able to resonate with folks on those things is just providing more value. And so I think these markets are going to be more enduring. The Beanie Baby of the day is what they call the Labubu. My prediction is that that market keeps growing for a really long time. The Labubu is not going the way of the Beanie Baby? I think people want more unique experiences today. I think social media amplifies them. And so I think the Labubu is going to stay strong. EBay launched a live shopping feature two or three years ago, right? Did you look at that as, like, “Oh, here’s a competitive threat.” Or as a validation of your model? Or maybe a little bit of both? The way I look at a lot of these things is, I try and understand the historical context on incumbents versus startups. As a business, running a business that’s growing very fast, there are so many different things that you have to worry about at any given point in time. And so if you’re not really clear on what matters, you can get really distracted. And if you look at consumer markets in the U.S. over, I don’t know, 20, 30 years, it is pretty rare the incumbent wins when you have a fast-growing consumer company, as long as you execute really well. Have I, at times, worried about competitors? Yeah, absolutely. It’s a very human emotion. Like, “Oh, here’s this company that has a gajillion dollars and they’re coming at something that we’ve spent a huge quantity of our life building.” But ultimately, I tell this to the team now, and it’s true: Every second I’ve spent worrying about a competitor has been a second wasted. And so I think now we just try and stay really, really, really focused on delivering. We are the largest in the market by a significant quantity, and we don’t want to get complacent. Sometimes the competition is doing things better than you. And if they are and it’s an area where you are competing for customers, you’d better deliver better than them. Or at least as good as themotherwise there are risks. Are there things that you’ve learned about today’s consumer that traditional rtailers or e-commerce players are missing? In many ways, Whatnot is like the polar opposite of the e-commerce players of the past 30 years. It’s not an efficient form of purchasing. You’re going to sit around and watch things for hours. I think the fundamental truth is that shopping’s always been an activity that people have enjoyed doing. A lot of shopping is experiential. I used to hang out with my friends in the mall. People are craving an experiential online e-commerce experience. That’s definitely going to be a thing that over the next five or 10 years, every brand, every retailer is going to end up investing in. I read that you and the Whatnot team have this feeling of being perennially underestimated. I’m sure some of that is motivating. Is there a downside? Or would the downside be like losing the underdog feeling? I think we like to be underestimated. The first time we tried to raise money … I have a spreadsheet with all of the investors who I talked to, and it got to 100 no’s, and I stopped keeping track of it. And I still have the spreadsheet and all of the reasons why. So I’m not going to lie, that’s motivating. At least for me, there’s nothing more motivating than someone saying, “Oh, you can’t do the thing.” I’ll always carry a little bit of chip. And I think a little bit of chip is helpful because it keeps you going, keeps you motivated. Now, it’s helpful to remain underestimated so that we’re not distracted and can just build. And then when the thing’s great, it will speak for itself.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||