The future is emotional(aeon.co)
aeon.co
The future is emotional
https://aeon.co/essays/the-key-to-jobs-in-the-future-is-not-college-but-compassion
60 comments
The use of earphones and iPods is for personal mobile convenience. Live music is still in hot demand as an activity, and in fact one way artists have adapted to loss of revenue from the end of album sales, has been to focus on touring and other events.
People socialize with producers all of the time. Twitch streamers, Instagram influencers, YouTube stars- there is hot demand from fans to interact with their internet celebrities. Traditional creators get huge attention from Reddit AMA's.
It is true that smartphones have become a massive attention drainer. And automation has created a culture of seeking convenience and availability from machines instead of people whom you know. But your post conflates two different types of human activity- creative, intellectual, entertaining pursuit and logistics-heavy, service work. People will always prefer real people doing the former, until Holodecks really are a thing.
People socialize with producers all of the time. Twitch streamers, Instagram influencers, YouTube stars- there is hot demand from fans to interact with their internet celebrities. Traditional creators get huge attention from Reddit AMA's.
It is true that smartphones have become a massive attention drainer. And automation has created a culture of seeking convenience and availability from machines instead of people whom you know. But your post conflates two different types of human activity- creative, intellectual, entertaining pursuit and logistics-heavy, service work. People will always prefer real people doing the former, until Holodecks really are a thing.
Demand to interact with a celebrity is not the same thing as demand to interact with a milkman, a paperboy or a waiter. And it is rarely satisfied in any meaningful way since the celebrity is a human being with limited attention. Whereas the delivery man can gladly interact with his customers but how often do you do that? In short - demand for the local interactions has been dropping.
Concerts today do take place, of course, but they are not the same as 20 people getting together in a salon for interaction and a musical soiree.
Concerts today do take place, of course, but they are not the same as 20 people getting together in a salon for interaction and a musical soiree.
Sure it is. People normally go to concerts with friends. Demand for music festivals have also increased:
http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/music-festivals/77...
http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/music-festivals/77...
Yes, with friends! As I said, consumers want to interact with each other, not with producers.
Well, open mic nights are still available. Meetups are a way for producers to interact together with interested consumers. Conventions have surely become huge. There are still plenty of avenues for non-celebrity producers to meet consumers.
My point is simply that future consumers may not necessarily be looking for those interactions as the article suggests.
> People socialize with producers all of the time
When it's a one-way conversation, that's consuming.
When it's a one-way conversation, that's consuming.
It's less one-way when live-streamed Q&A's and AMAs are now possible.
Unless it's a direct 1 to 1 conversation, it's still consumed. Typically in AMAs it's a one-way communication. A person asks a question, if it gets chosen then a response is done, nothing ever happens after that.
I really, really, really hate it when they refer to things like taking physical care of the elderly as "emotional labor." Caretaking can have a huge emotional component, but this framing has serious inherent problems.
Furthermore, art, fiction and music are things that can do a lot for people emotionally and psychologically, both the makers of such and the consumers. Yet no one ever seems to include those in these ridiculous articles about so-called emotional labor which perhaps should more accurately be termed traditional women's work.
Furthermore, art, fiction and music are things that can do a lot for people emotionally and psychologically, both the makers of such and the consumers. Yet no one ever seems to include those in these ridiculous articles about so-called emotional labor which perhaps should more accurately be termed traditional women's work.
I believe what the article points to convey about "emotional labour" is that, it is tough to do these jobs because, being in constant company of distress and suffering is emotionally very tough.
Specially in case of elderly or those suffering from terminal diseases, it is much more tough because inherent you are helpless, you want to do so much but inspite of your best efforts, you can't do anything.
that's emotional labour!
Specially in case of elderly or those suffering from terminal diseases, it is much more tough because inherent you are helpless, you want to do so much but inspite of your best efforts, you can't do anything.
that's emotional labour!
What are the "serious inherent problems" in calling it emotional labor?
For one thing, it simultaneously glamorizes and discounts the hard physical labor involved in doing things like cleaning up someone who is playing with their own feces and throwing them at you. For another, it discounts the actual education and intelligence involved in doing a good job of taking proper care of people. For a third, it just reinforces the pink collar ghetto mentality surrounding this kind of work.
Perhaps most importantly, it frames it like this is about the laborer having emotional discipline or something. The reality is that feelings come from somewhere and we routinely mix up "love" the noun that describes a feeling and "love" the verb that describes care-taking that meets a high standard. That feeling in one person typically grows out of the hard labor done by another. The person that inspires the feelings is very often treated pretty abusively. They exist to make other people feel good and to hell with their needs or wants, kind of like the recent story titled "My Family's Slave."
Perhaps most importantly, it frames it like this is about the laborer having emotional discipline or something. The reality is that feelings come from somewhere and we routinely mix up "love" the noun that describes a feeling and "love" the verb that describes care-taking that meets a high standard. That feeling in one person typically grows out of the hard labor done by another. The person that inspires the feelings is very often treated pretty abusively. They exist to make other people feel good and to hell with their needs or wants, kind of like the recent story titled "My Family's Slave."
All of that seems to argue pretty strongly in favor of calling it "emotional labor" - caretaking involves a serious trade-off where the caretaker is expending a lot of emotional energy to do work for someone else. Much like physical labor involves expending a lot of physical energy to get stuff done.
I don't see anything either overly demeaning or glamorous about that descriptive term, it seems to describe exactly the value proposition that is on the table with that sort of work.
I don't see anything either overly demeaning or glamorous about that descriptive term, it seems to describe exactly the value proposition that is on the table with that sort of work.
From the article:
For men and women, paid and unpaid, waking at 3am to care for a crying baby or bathing a distressed Alzheimer’s patient can be gruelling and transcendentally life-affirming all at once.
Lots of people take satisfaction in a job well done. This is pretty universally true, regardless of what kind of work you do. The above framing describes cleaning up other people's literal shit in near religious ecstasy type terms. If that isn't overblown, I don't know what is.
I did the full time mom thing for a lot of years. I raised and homeschooled two special needs kids and was a military wife. Finding good solutions that supposedly did not exist is something that I feel very proud of. But cleaning up literal shit never felt like some sort of joyous nigh religious thing. It was grueling, yes. Transcendental, big fat nope.
I am appalled by this article. You should go look up the recent article called "My Family's Slave."
For men and women, paid and unpaid, waking at 3am to care for a crying baby or bathing a distressed Alzheimer’s patient can be gruelling and transcendentally life-affirming all at once.
Lots of people take satisfaction in a job well done. This is pretty universally true, regardless of what kind of work you do. The above framing describes cleaning up other people's literal shit in near religious ecstasy type terms. If that isn't overblown, I don't know what is.
I did the full time mom thing for a lot of years. I raised and homeschooled two special needs kids and was a military wife. Finding good solutions that supposedly did not exist is something that I feel very proud of. But cleaning up literal shit never felt like some sort of joyous nigh religious thing. It was grueling, yes. Transcendental, big fat nope.
I am appalled by this article. You should go look up the recent article called "My Family's Slave."
re: "it frames it like this is about the laborer having emotional discipline"
I thought "emotional" had more to do with the person being helped? They may be going through some kind of crisis (having one of the worst days of their lives). Helping them isn't just an obstacle to doing the job; in medical or teaching professions, it often is the job. That's why it's different from another job that might be equally or more physically demanding, but it's just hard work.
Maybe we could distinguish this from jobs serving the public where ordinary, able-bodied adult customers are being demanding for no good reason. But then again, they are probably serving the young, old, sick, etc. some of the time too. That's what serving the public means; you get all kinds.
I thought "emotional" had more to do with the person being helped? They may be going through some kind of crisis (having one of the worst days of their lives). Helping them isn't just an obstacle to doing the job; in medical or teaching professions, it often is the job. That's why it's different from another job that might be equally or more physically demanding, but it's just hard work.
Maybe we could distinguish this from jobs serving the public where ordinary, able-bodied adult customers are being demanding for no good reason. But then again, they are probably serving the young, old, sick, etc. some of the time too. That's what serving the public means; you get all kinds.
Well, it's also highly physical. Cooking and cleaning take up a large chunk of the time and labor, even if you aren't technically required to do so.
Hmm, okay, let's say we compare:
- Working in the back of the house in a restaurant
- Someone who visits old people and also cooks and cleans for them.
The first one, while requiring skill and being a relatively low-paid job that a lot of people might not want to take, technically doesn't require customer interaction. (And perhaps not even much in the way of English skills, which makes it a more practical job for some immigrants.)
For the home visit, the actual cooking and cleaning, though important, might not actually be the most important reason they're there?
How should we talk about the difference?
The first one, while requiring skill and being a relatively low-paid job that a lot of people might not want to take, technically doesn't require customer interaction. (And perhaps not even much in the way of English skills, which makes it a more practical job for some immigrants.)
For the home visit, the actual cooking and cleaning, though important, might not actually be the most important reason they're there?
How should we talk about the difference?
I think the difference is that there are two ways to burn out from the job, or the pressure comes from multiple ways, than other jobs.
This is anecdotal, but my mother in law spent a decade paying home visits to disabled vets. This is not senior care, but you see similar situations of people with special needs and an inability to care for themselves fully. Two things that she emphasized were how she was hugely underpaid for the work she actually did (as opposed to the work she was minimally required to do) and how she needed frequent, long spans filling paperwork to recover from the physical and mental duties. I may be wrong, but you don't often see that with jobs that require exertion on a single front unless it's extremely stressful and salaried accordingly (e.g. surgeon).
This is anecdotal, but my mother in law spent a decade paying home visits to disabled vets. This is not senior care, but you see similar situations of people with special needs and an inability to care for themselves fully. Two things that she emphasized were how she was hugely underpaid for the work she actually did (as opposed to the work she was minimally required to do) and how she needed frequent, long spans filling paperwork to recover from the physical and mental duties. I may be wrong, but you don't often see that with jobs that require exertion on a single front unless it's extremely stressful and salaried accordingly (e.g. surgeon).
[deleted]
Clarifying question: are you referring to emotional labor as labor which is emotionally taxing for the producer, or labor which produces a positive emotional effect on the consumer / receiver?
I wonder how this relates to what economists call "cost disease?" As the cost goes down in some industries (through automation or other efficiency improvements), this increases wages in those industries, which spills over into other, traditionally lower-wage industries due to competition for workers, not through efficiency improvements.
But despite calling it a "disease," this doesn't necessarily seem like a bad thing. Often they're difficult jobs (high emotional labor), so they maybe they should pay more?
But despite calling it a "disease," this doesn't necessarily seem like a bad thing. Often they're difficult jobs (high emotional labor), so they maybe they should pay more?
That's not exactly correct; the real issue with Baumol's Cost Disease isn't that it leads to wages in "traditionally lower-wage industries" — it's that wage competition leads to wage increases in sectors that don't undergo productivity gains.
To give an example: medical doctors aren't a low-skill/low-wage profession, but their productivity in crude terms of patients examined per hour appears stagnant — medicine is inherently labour-intensive (although the outcomes of care provided can improve over time as new and better treatments become available). If wages rise in other professionalized sectors that require huge amounts of training due to productivity gains (e.g. among engineers), wages will consequently rise for doctors because doctors and engineers are loosely coupled at source through the training/labour market.
TLDR: cost disease isn't about low-wage occupations, it's about pay in occupations that are refractory to performance improvement being coupled to pay in sectors where performance gains are possible via the labour market.
To give an example: medical doctors aren't a low-skill/low-wage profession, but their productivity in crude terms of patients examined per hour appears stagnant — medicine is inherently labour-intensive (although the outcomes of care provided can improve over time as new and better treatments become available). If wages rise in other professionalized sectors that require huge amounts of training due to productivity gains (e.g. among engineers), wages will consequently rise for doctors because doctors and engineers are loosely coupled at source through the training/labour market.
TLDR: cost disease isn't about low-wage occupations, it's about pay in occupations that are refractory to performance improvement being coupled to pay in sectors where performance gains are possible via the labour market.
Charlie: the concept is highly analogous to Amdahl's Law, in some regards. The limit to performance increases in parallelisation is limited by the non-parallelisible portion of a process. The limits to productivity increases are limited by the irreducible labour component of a productive process.
The other element is that wages represent the provisioning costs of labour, or as Adam Smith puts it, "A man must always live by his work, and his wages must at least be sufficient to maintain him." (Further qualified upwards in subsequent text.) WoN, Book 1, Ch. 8.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3300/3300-h/3300-h.htm#link2H...
Which is to say: wages are not defined by productivity, but by the general wage level. What is defined by productivity is instead the quantity demanded of a good.
If some quantity of a high-labour good is demanded, then that quantity will pay wages based on the minimum prevailing wage (and if that's a sustainable level: the minimum living wage), plus additional premia for various other factors elevating wages above that floor, as described by Smith in chapter 10 of book 1.
The other element is that wages represent the provisioning costs of labour, or as Adam Smith puts it, "A man must always live by his work, and his wages must at least be sufficient to maintain him." (Further qualified upwards in subsequent text.) WoN, Book 1, Ch. 8.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3300/3300-h/3300-h.htm#link2H...
Which is to say: wages are not defined by productivity, but by the general wage level. What is defined by productivity is instead the quantity demanded of a good.
If some quantity of a high-labour good is demanded, then that quantity will pay wages based on the minimum prevailing wage (and if that's a sustainable level: the minimum living wage), plus additional premia for various other factors elevating wages above that floor, as described by Smith in chapter 10 of book 1.
Any sociopath/psychopath can game the emotional intelligence system by appearing to be whatever they feel they need to be, to get what they want, and it's not pretty.
No, not any socio/psychopath. Only highly intelligent ones. Average or lower intelligence individuals usually end up in prison. They aren't deterred by threats of punishment so they tend to have serious behavioural problems growing up. It takes a special sort of psychopath to defer rewards in favour of long term success in the absence of the usual punishments associated with child rearing.
"EQ is not a psychometrically valid concept. Insofar as it is anything (which it isn't) it's the Big Five trait agreeableness, although this depends, as it shouldn't, on which EQ measure is being used (they should all measure THE SAME THING). Agreeable people are compassionate and polite, but they can also be pushovers. Disagreeable people, on average (if they aren't too disagreeable) make better managers, because they are straightforward, don't avoid conflict and cannot be easily manipulated."
https://www.quora.com/What-is-more-beneficial-in-life-a-high...
https://www.quora.com/What-is-more-beneficial-in-life-a-high...
There is a show called Psycho Pass that directly addresses what you are talking about. It's definitely worth checking out
Stay tuned for the next employment-related thread where multiple people relay advice to "fake it 'til you make it."
Is there a job that doesn't require some emotional intelligence?
Given the number of bosses I've had with near 0 emotional intelligence, software development is one of them.
I've experienced managers like that, but both their careers and their organizations were harmed by their lack of emotional intelligence. I don't think that it is accurate to say software development doesn't require emotional intelligence.
It's worth noting that emotional intelligence doesn't mean someone is kind and good. Emotional intelligence can also allow people to be manipulative too. That can be perhaps even more harmful to employees than an emotionally unintelligent manager, but usually such a manager can be very successful and effective for their organization.
It's worth noting that emotional intelligence doesn't mean someone is kind and good. Emotional intelligence can also allow people to be manipulative too. That can be perhaps even more harmful to employees than an emotionally unintelligent manager, but usually such a manager can be very successful and effective for their organization.
Mechanical Turk?
Sure. Most manufacturing jobs, warehouse stocking jobs, plenty of farm jobs (consistently underrated in terms of salary vs skills).
Yet another article filled with feel-goodery truthiness that cannot be debunked.
I'm a bit annoyed at the constant background snide and subtle implication of these vague literary articles, that programmers are bad empathetically or emotionally. They use facts such as western programming culture being very male-dominated, and then twist this to imply that males are bad at being empathetic.
Firstly the gender ratio of engineers in e.g. Russia is more even, so let's just shoot that one down before continuing. There's a lot of gender imbalance in Western culture as a whole and to imply that most of it is the "fault" of unemotional males is pretty insulting.
Often this also accompanied by some implicit value judgement assumption, that they attempt to force onto the programmer. "My values are better than yours". Er, no sorry. If you think a programmer is being unemotional, perhaps you should take a step back and examine whether it is you who are being unempathetic, brushing away someone else's engineering concerns as being less important than your own personal feelings about a topic that you don't have a good knowledge of?
Firstly the gender ratio of engineers in e.g. Russia is more even, so let's just shoot that one down before continuing. There's a lot of gender imbalance in Western culture as a whole and to imply that most of it is the "fault" of unemotional males is pretty insulting.
Often this also accompanied by some implicit value judgement assumption, that they attempt to force onto the programmer. "My values are better than yours". Er, no sorry. If you think a programmer is being unemotional, perhaps you should take a step back and examine whether it is you who are being unempathetic, brushing away someone else's engineering concerns as being less important than your own personal feelings about a topic that you don't have a good knowledge of?
Totally side question - are you Russian by nature and language?
If you are, I'm wondering if you ever feel limited by English as a language. Do you feel like you have bigger, better ideas in Russian?
If you are, I'm wondering if you ever feel limited by English as a language. Do you feel like you have bigger, better ideas in Russian?
I'm not Russian, but it feels like emotional responses are more... emotional in Russian. Like thinking about something or swearing.
English is a more rational language, and my "native" (I don't use it much) language is a bit restrictive when expressing anything, whether logical or emotional.
English is a more rational language, and my "native" (I don't use it much) language is a bit restrictive when expressing anything, whether logical or emotional.
You didn't ask me, but I am compelled to answer because its an interesting question, and, well, Russian is my native language.
Till the age of eleven, I was essentially speaking only Russian. They did teach us some pretty rudimentary English at school, just enough to ask for directions in a foreign country.
Then, my family moved to Canada, and I had to learn French. It took about 2 years to attain a native-level proficiency. Then, I learned English as a "second language" (actually third, of course) here in Canada.
French is the language I use most. Thus, my largest and most precise vocabulary is in French, and this is obviously the easiest language to express myself.
However, I don't feel constrained by a language while talking/writing in English or Russian. Worst case scenario, I have to turn to Google to translate some precise French word when the English equivalent does not come fast enough.
In general, I think in whatever language I am using at the moment, and the best ideas can come in any of those three languages.
Till the age of eleven, I was essentially speaking only Russian. They did teach us some pretty rudimentary English at school, just enough to ask for directions in a foreign country.
Then, my family moved to Canada, and I had to learn French. It took about 2 years to attain a native-level proficiency. Then, I learned English as a "second language" (actually third, of course) here in Canada.
French is the language I use most. Thus, my largest and most precise vocabulary is in French, and this is obviously the easiest language to express myself.
However, I don't feel constrained by a language while talking/writing in English or Russian. Worst case scenario, I have to turn to Google to translate some precise French word when the English equivalent does not come fast enough.
In general, I think in whatever language I am using at the moment, and the best ideas can come in any of those three languages.
The problem is that empathy and analytical thinking are to an extent mutually exclusive. See e.g. [1].
[1] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121030161416.h...
[1] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121030161416.h...
I can't program and play music at the same time either, doesn't mean I'm bad at music.
Did you read the whole article? I don't think it was implying anything negative about tech workers or making value judgements. I am frustrated by some of the same things you are, but I don't think they were present in the article.
To me it was saying something pragmatic like "Now that advances in technology are taking care of more and more of our material needs while requiring less labor, there is a relative need/opportunity for workers in roles requiring especially-high emotional skills and endurance". Would you disagree with that?
To me it was saying something pragmatic like "Now that advances in technology are taking care of more and more of our material needs while requiring less labor, there is a relative need/opportunity for workers in roles requiring especially-high emotional skills and endurance". Would you disagree with that?
The article is certainly more negative than you're giving it credit for. Its title makes a prediction about the future, but it spends about 3/25 paragraphs explaining why it is making that prediction (where it quotes statistics about the changing landscape of jobs).
The rest of it instead talks about the benefits of being more emotional (nobody would disagree) and complaining about why people don't seem to think it's as important as the author thinks, but without balancing it out with everything else happening in the world that people have to also think about.
This is done after framing the first paragraph in terms of Obama supporting computer science education, so it's clear that the author wants to imply a contrast or opposition to this, in the rest of the article.
There's also a fair amount of implicit bias and weasel wording dotted around the place, like:
- "But the truth is, only a tiny percentage of people will ever end up working in software engineering [..]" - "It’s also not hard to see that highly educated, mostly male [..]" - "the information revolution frees us to complement, rather than compete with, the technical competence of computers"
The first and third ones basically "beg the question" of the whole article's thesis - it's stated as an implicit assumption, it's never actually justified.
In fact, technology is also automating away a lot of human service jobs, and there's even ongoing research to replace them with robots that can "act" more emotionally. I think the development of this sort of technology shows that plenty of programmers are emotional and empathetic, and the article makes no mention of these.
So it's not infeasible that we'll see a trend (in the long run) of there being less "care workers" of the sort that the article mentions. I'm not in the business of making predictions though, I don't think I know enough - unlike this article which is too falsely confident of itself.
Nobody disputes that it would be good, if all jobs were done by people that were more emotionally sensitive; however you could say the same thing about technical topics, like knowing how your new laptop or phone actually works.
Finally, my own experience of this topic has been that, without exception, complaints about the supposed lack of emotion in programmers or in industry or whatever, has been from people with personal grudges to hold against particular programmers or particular aspects of more analytical behaviour, and who also implicitly think they are "superior" emotionally.
The rest of it instead talks about the benefits of being more emotional (nobody would disagree) and complaining about why people don't seem to think it's as important as the author thinks, but without balancing it out with everything else happening in the world that people have to also think about.
This is done after framing the first paragraph in terms of Obama supporting computer science education, so it's clear that the author wants to imply a contrast or opposition to this, in the rest of the article.
There's also a fair amount of implicit bias and weasel wording dotted around the place, like:
- "But the truth is, only a tiny percentage of people will ever end up working in software engineering [..]" - "It’s also not hard to see that highly educated, mostly male [..]" - "the information revolution frees us to complement, rather than compete with, the technical competence of computers"
The first and third ones basically "beg the question" of the whole article's thesis - it's stated as an implicit assumption, it's never actually justified.
In fact, technology is also automating away a lot of human service jobs, and there's even ongoing research to replace them with robots that can "act" more emotionally. I think the development of this sort of technology shows that plenty of programmers are emotional and empathetic, and the article makes no mention of these.
So it's not infeasible that we'll see a trend (in the long run) of there being less "care workers" of the sort that the article mentions. I'm not in the business of making predictions though, I don't think I know enough - unlike this article which is too falsely confident of itself.
Nobody disputes that it would be good, if all jobs were done by people that were more emotionally sensitive; however you could say the same thing about technical topics, like knowing how your new laptop or phone actually works.
Finally, my own experience of this topic has been that, without exception, complaints about the supposed lack of emotion in programmers or in industry or whatever, has been from people with personal grudges to hold against particular programmers or particular aspects of more analytical behaviour, and who also implicitly think they are "superior" emotionally.
I think you're being overly reactive here. The article really had nothing to do with what you're talking about (though I understand that sentiment exists). It did make a general class-based argument about "emotional IQ," but none of that was directed specifically at analytic programmer types.
The reason that programming was mentioned was to illustrate how our culture is currently very focused on knowledge work (programming for everyone!), so they could make the counter-point that another type of work is currently undervalued. You may agree or disagree with that, but it is a huge stretch to take the whole thing as a slight against analytic/less emotional types.
The reason that programming was mentioned was to illustrate how our culture is currently very focused on knowledge work (programming for everyone!), so they could make the counter-point that another type of work is currently undervalued. You may agree or disagree with that, but it is a huge stretch to take the whole thing as a slight against analytic/less emotional types.
I find it ironic that your reaction to the article proves the point you imagine it makes, but that it doesn't actually make. The way I understood the sentences you point out (and I am pretty certain that my reading matches the author's intention) is that certain things are put in opposition to technical subjects merely because this is where power is currently overwhelmingly concentrated. When you write about the importance of dry land in islands in the Pacific ocean, it is not to imply that the water is bad in any way, but to contrast it with the obvious overwhelming predominance of water in the ocean.
To use your analogy, the article's title is "The key to jobs in the future is not water but land." It spends very little time arguing this. Instead, it assumes it, and rather argues why land is useful, with some random remarks throw in about how the land is green and the water is blue.
I don't think it's an over-reaction to understand that they are implying that the water is unimportant, and also implying that the water won't help to fulfill the same needs that the land might fulfill.
And here, I think your analogy is biased in favour of the article; there's no reason why analytical skills can't help us improve services that require a lot of emotional empathy; they are not as separate as "land" vs "water.
And if you're talking about irony, what I find ironic is an article that places such importance on emotional empathy is happy to use a divisive title like "The future is not X but Y". Obviously the people that personally hold greater weight for X are going to be annoyed. And they didn't even do a good job of explaining why they think it!
I don't think it's an over-reaction to understand that they are implying that the water is unimportant, and also implying that the water won't help to fulfill the same needs that the land might fulfill.
And here, I think your analogy is biased in favour of the article; there's no reason why analytical skills can't help us improve services that require a lot of emotional empathy; they are not as separate as "land" vs "water.
And if you're talking about irony, what I find ironic is an article that places such importance on emotional empathy is happy to use a divisive title like "The future is not X but Y". Obviously the people that personally hold greater weight for X are going to be annoyed. And they didn't even do a good job of explaining why they think it!
> To use your analogy, the article's title is "The key to jobs in the future is not water but land."
No, it isn't.
> I don't think it's an over-reaction to understand that they are implying that the water is unimportant,
Not only do they not say that, I seriously doubt they think that.
> and also implying that the water won't help to fulfill the same needs that the land might fulfill.
Well, that's a matter of opinion and you're welcome to disagree with the article, but I think that there are many important jobs that software can't do well. I certainly don't think that it's obvious that software will do all those things well any time soon.
> there's no reason why analytical skills can't help us improve services that require a lot of emotional empathy
Maybe, but the article says no such thing.
> they are not as separate as "land" vs "water.
At this point they are.
> what I find ironic is an article that places such importance on emotional empathy is happy to use a divisive title like "The future is not X but Y
What I find ironic is that this is not the title at all.
> Obviously the people that personally hold greater weight for X are going to be annoyed.
Why? That's not the title nor explicitly or implicitly said in the article at any point. What annoys me is that not only are you now in the position having far more power, but are annoyed at the claim that others may have some power as well, insisting that your power dominates theirs and balking at the idea that it may not.
No, it isn't.
> I don't think it's an over-reaction to understand that they are implying that the water is unimportant,
Not only do they not say that, I seriously doubt they think that.
> and also implying that the water won't help to fulfill the same needs that the land might fulfill.
Well, that's a matter of opinion and you're welcome to disagree with the article, but I think that there are many important jobs that software can't do well. I certainly don't think that it's obvious that software will do all those things well any time soon.
> there's no reason why analytical skills can't help us improve services that require a lot of emotional empathy
Maybe, but the article says no such thing.
> they are not as separate as "land" vs "water.
At this point they are.
> what I find ironic is an article that places such importance on emotional empathy is happy to use a divisive title like "The future is not X but Y
What I find ironic is that this is not the title at all.
> Obviously the people that personally hold greater weight for X are going to be annoyed.
Why? That's not the title nor explicitly or implicitly said in the article at any point. What annoys me is that not only are you now in the position having far more power, but are annoyed at the claim that others may have some power as well, insisting that your power dominates theirs and balking at the idea that it may not.
> there's no reason why analytical skills can't help us improve services that require a lot of emotional empathy
While I agree with that to a certain extent (example, the work Microsoft is doing in collaboration with Dr. Eckman's work on microexpressions to read emotional cues from facial expressions), there is a certain part in mindful, loving-kindness that I doubt could be replicated by automation. (Or rather, if there were a way, it would involve a kind of self-serve ... where the user is lead through an experience that generates self-compassion).
I say this as someone who has spent much of my 20s and early 30s heavily analytical, then went through some extreme, transformative experiences. These transformative experiences got me in awareness of emotions in a way that was difficult for my intellect to fool me into thinking otherwise. There was a world of experience that made much more sense.
You're mistaken in thinking that emotional empathy means that such people will not be divisive. The most compassionate can stay centered even in face of extreme divisiveness -- being centered in midst of extreme emotions is why they _can_ be compassionate -- and as such, can often be the voice of uncomfortable, deep, soul-shaking truths. Or better, to bear silent witness for the uncomfortable truths as it works its way out into the open.
The kind of "emotional labor" this article talks about involves bearing a lot of pain and suffering, above and beyond the physical labor. These pain are often pain that, others are not witnessing or mindful themselves. The traditional archetype of heroism is exactly the wrong archetype that bears these pain: the traditional hero who bears pain fools himself into thinking he still retains control over when and how that pain expresses itself. Life, though, brings pain all on its own. No one can control it. Absorbing, deflecting, and armoring against pain does not develop empathy. There is no fooling yourself that you can control when and how it happens, and that unpredictability and lack of control makes it much more difficult to experience. A traditional hero eventually breaks under these conditions. Our society currently materially rewards these heroes, even though they are not suited for dealing with pain and suffering.
When we cross a threshold with automation, I think we will no longer have much left to keep the existential anguish at bay. And that's when people who have been quietly working with these difficult emotions will help keep things from flying apart.
While I agree with that to a certain extent (example, the work Microsoft is doing in collaboration with Dr. Eckman's work on microexpressions to read emotional cues from facial expressions), there is a certain part in mindful, loving-kindness that I doubt could be replicated by automation. (Or rather, if there were a way, it would involve a kind of self-serve ... where the user is lead through an experience that generates self-compassion).
I say this as someone who has spent much of my 20s and early 30s heavily analytical, then went through some extreme, transformative experiences. These transformative experiences got me in awareness of emotions in a way that was difficult for my intellect to fool me into thinking otherwise. There was a world of experience that made much more sense.
You're mistaken in thinking that emotional empathy means that such people will not be divisive. The most compassionate can stay centered even in face of extreme divisiveness -- being centered in midst of extreme emotions is why they _can_ be compassionate -- and as such, can often be the voice of uncomfortable, deep, soul-shaking truths. Or better, to bear silent witness for the uncomfortable truths as it works its way out into the open.
The kind of "emotional labor" this article talks about involves bearing a lot of pain and suffering, above and beyond the physical labor. These pain are often pain that, others are not witnessing or mindful themselves. The traditional archetype of heroism is exactly the wrong archetype that bears these pain: the traditional hero who bears pain fools himself into thinking he still retains control over when and how that pain expresses itself. Life, though, brings pain all on its own. No one can control it. Absorbing, deflecting, and armoring against pain does not develop empathy. There is no fooling yourself that you can control when and how it happens, and that unpredictability and lack of control makes it much more difficult to experience. A traditional hero eventually breaks under these conditions. Our society currently materially rewards these heroes, even though they are not suited for dealing with pain and suffering.
When we cross a threshold with automation, I think we will no longer have much left to keep the existential anguish at bay. And that's when people who have been quietly working with these difficult emotions will help keep things from flying apart.
There's a difference between empathy as a bonus and empathy as a job requirement. Traditionally, people who didn't fit in (the typical nerd stereotype, or maybe someone on the autistic spectrum) could do well as programmers, even if they lacked the sort of soft skills needed to do well in other positions.
Of course, it always helps. But being able to accommodate people with different levels of social and/or emotional awareness is a good thing.
Of course, it always helps. But being able to accommodate people with different levels of social and/or emotional awareness is a good thing.
I'm reminded of a certain kind of irony I've faced multiple times in my life: people who think they are more "socially intelligent" than I finding the most awkward and graceless way of telling me they think I'm not as skilled at being comfortable and graceful as themselves.
Non-falsifiable predictions.
Is this towards me, or towards the article? : )
Well, of course it is. You don't go rioting in the streets while thinking rationally.
Not necessarily. There is sufficient precedent to establish that violence is an effective tool for that purpose, when applied in the right way under the right circumstances. Therefore, it can be rational to is violence for political means.
(Not advocating for violence here in any way. Just disputing your "while thinking rationally" point. There's actually a longrunning dispute among leftist theorists and philosophers whether violence is an acceptable means of bringing about political change. But the dispute is only about whether it's morally acceptable.)
(Not advocating for violence here in any way. Just disputing your "while thinking rationally" point. There's actually a longrunning dispute among leftist theorists and philosophers whether violence is an acceptable means of bringing about political change. But the dispute is only about whether it's morally acceptable.)
People used to gather in salons to hear live music. Today we put earphones on a train to listen to music instead of socializing.
If we socialize, we do it with other consumers, not producers.
Compare photos of the 50s and now. Everyone was socializing outside. Today they are on fb with the phones mediating.
The milkman doesn't come around anymore. The gas station attendant doesn't fill up your car in many states. The Uber driver drops food off and leaves right away. Amazon delivers.
We want it globally accessible, accurate, and now.
Already you prefer to ask Google than your parents or teachers, and so do they.
In the future as AI gets better how do you know people will still want that smiling McDonalds cashier instead of a kiosk? Or the personal touch of a chef instead of a machine that gets the same result every time?