Aaron Miller

Aaron Miller

Provo, UT
Empathy Is Messy

Empathy Is Messy

Rethinking the trait we all want more of

Some questions to consider:

  • Have you ever helped someone in crisis, but felt perfectly calm and collected while doing it?
  • On the other hand, have you ever felt so sad for someone else that you felt completely overwhelmed?
  • Do you ever feel guilty for not caring enough about all the suffering in the world?

For spring break this year, I tackled the book Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion by Paul Bloom, a moral psychologist at Yale. It’s an engaging and enlightening book, one that I highly recommend as a way to broaden your thinking about how to help others. (As I write this, the Kindle version is available free to Prime members.)

Bloom’s central argument is that empathy—which he basically defines as feeling the emotions that others feel—is a messy, misguided tool for making the world a better place. While it has some benefit in helping us to appreciate the perspectives of others, it also comes with a great deal of drawbacks that we overlook.

One such failing is empathic overload. Some people feel the suffering of others especially keenly, and it’s often to their detriment. Some men but especially women, for example, engage in unmitigated communion, an unhealthy focus on the needs of others to the exclusion of self. Research shows that unmitigated communion leads to poor mental and physical health. Another problem with too much empathy: nurses who measure highly in affective empathy are more likely to experience compassion fatigue, which makes them less effective in giving care.

Adding to the criticism, empathy biases us unjustly. Bloom describes a “spotlight effect” from empathy, which causes us to focus on the needs of one person and ignore others who are equally or even more needy. To illustrate, he points to a Daniel Batson study where participants were given an opportunity to move a girl with a medical condition higher on the waiting list for treatment. Those who felt more empathy for the girl were more likely to help her jump the line, even though the list was described as prioritizing those who needed treatment the most. Increased empathy, in this case, led to an unjust outcome.

Finally, empathy frequently leads us to aggression and violence. This same argument surfaces in Rutger Bregman’s excellent book Human Kind, which I wrote about in a previous newsletter issue. Empathy sends people to fight, even to war, because we feel so strongly for those we’re defending.

And compassion isn’t the same thing as empathy, by Bloom’s definition. (And I agree with him.) In fact, one study involving Matthieu Ricard, a Buddhist monk and neuroscientist whom I’ve also written about before, showed that the brain behaves differently when experiencing compassion than it does when experiencing empathy. It uses different neural components and generates less fatigue and distress. It feels true to me that love and empathy are different from each other. Bloom adroitly clarifies:

It’s not that empathy itself automatically leads to kindness. Rather, empathy has to connect to kindness that already exists. Empathy makes good people better, then, because kind people don’t like suffering, and empathy makes this suffering salient.

I’m still processing the arguments against empathy, and I’m less willing than Bloom to say we’d be better off without it. But I agree that a world run by emotional mirroring is a bad idea. Our emotions are important but fickle guides to decision-making. I’m convinced that helping people effectively requires all of our faculties. Just imagining how others feel doesn’t tell me what to do next, even if it can at least get me started.

Seeing Good at Work

Mental health issues continue to carry stigma or face neglect around the world. In Nepal, Koshish helps raise awareness for mental health throughout the country and offers programs to help people return to independent living despite their conditions.

These programs include peer groups, emergency support, and a national radio broadcast to educate even remote communities. I encourage you to review the dozens of success stories to see how their work helps.

Promotional Stuff

If you’re on Twitter, follow me there.

Business Is Mostly Cooperation

Business Is Mostly Cooperation

Competition is just part of the story

Aaron Miller

I’ve taught business ethics now for 14 years, and I’m surprised over and over by just how disproportionately business students value competition. To be sure, they’re not dummies. They know they’re headed into a competitive market that will demand value from them. But what they often fail to see is that their ability to cooperate will determine their success far more than their ability to compete.

If this sounds strange, consider your typical workday. Look at where the vast majority of your time and money are spent.

Every day you work at your job, you trust that your employer will pay you and they trust that you will do the work you’re hired to do. You and your coworkers rely on the same trust in each other, counting on each other to reach your goals. Fundamentally, these are cooperative activities, not competitive ones.

“That’s just teamwork,” you might reply. But cooperation extends well beyond teams. Retailers cooperate with manufacturers. Customers cooperate with sellers. If you track the time and money spent by companies, you quickly see that companies are essentially massive cooperative endeavors.

Photo by Randy Fath on Unsplash

Even innovation, which competition encourages, is a primarily cooperative endeavor. The myth of the lone inventor belies the reality of teams of co-innovators. And innovation isn’t constrained to teams within companies. Today, supply chains have dozens of participants that all contribute to new technologies becoming possible.

What does all this mean? It means that a free market rewards cooperation. The individuals and companies who succeed tend to excel in how they get along with others to pursue shared goals.

Competition mostly just creates incentives. Cooperation is what actually creates value.


Seeing Good at Work

Financial insecurity keeps women trapped in abusive relationships. FreeFromprovides domestic abuse survivors with training, legal resources, and small grants to help them establish financial independence. Their programs are comprehensive, ranging from individual solutions to advocating policy change. Their work was recently highlighted in the New York Times.

Their model scales by training service providers in their curriculum, so that more women can get the needed financial skills. Meanwhile, their grant program, Safety Fund, was just started last year and has already distributed micro-grants to over 1,100 survivors.

Promotional Stuff

My new podcast launches in just a couple of weeks! This first season is 12 episodes with people who will teach you all about having more impact and meaning in your work and life.

Speaking of cooperation, all the experts say that a coordinated launch—where people listen, rate, and subscribe all together—boosts a new podcast more than anything else. I hope I can count on you to help out. You’ll be hearing more from me soon.

And can I just say, this first season is going to be really great. 😁

The Dangers of Philanthropy

The Dangers of Philanthropy

Last week, we looked at the important role that philanthropy plays in a vibrant economy. It recycles wealth, creating new opportunity. But philanthropy’s economic power is only part of the story.

Massive philanthropy, after all, comes from massive wealth—and the power that comes with it frequently scares the public. Even back in Rockefeller’s days, the country aligned itself against his effort to create a foundation. That distrust of wealth continues today. Philanthropic villains still get regular coverage, like the Koch brothers by the left, and for the right, George Soros.

In his book, Just Giving, Stanford sociology professor Rob Reich makes a case that large-scale philanthropy poses a risk to democracy itself. Are the concerns justified? Perhaps.

There are two dangers we need to see more clearly.

Perpetual and Unaccountable

Andrew Carnegie famously noted in The Gospel of Wealth, “The man who dies thus rich dies disgraced,” illustrating that wealth locked away is wealth put to waste. Yet today, most private foundations spend an average just above 5% of their total assets. Because their investment returns are consistently higher than their grant making, this spending level allows them to survive in perpetuity at the cost of accomplishing far less. Perhaps Carnegie might have called a foundation that never even dies similarly disgraceful.

How does foundation frugality affect democracy? As Reich points out, private foundations also lack a great deal of accountability. Certainly they must act within the boundaries set by the tax code, but they don’t have any other market mechanisms to ensure the beneficial use of their resources. Companies of equivalent size have customers to hold them to account. A private foundation has no customers, nor any stakeholders other than the ones they choose for themselves.

And like wealth generally in the US, foundation wealth is concentrating to a smaller number of foundations. So as foundations continue to aggregate wealth and the power that comes with it, they wield even greater power over issues of public policy, like education, crime, and the environment. A community with fewer resources than a large foundation might find itself with little recourse other than hoping for benevolence and wisdom from a board of directors.

Professionalized Decay

Another philanthropy expert and critic, Bill Schambra, has noted that professional philanthropy, the kind characterized by the largest foundations, comes with a poisoned promise: The public need only provide their support, and the professionals can do the rest.

The danger here is that democracy is rooted in people feeling empowered to solve their own problems. I’m tempted to quote at length from a compelling speech Schambra gave on the subject, but I will cut to the chase. After describing the messy, but essential nature of communities crafting solutions, Schambra says:

Furthermore, and more important, by employing experts to undertake the tasks of democratic government, we’ve relieved citizens of the need to engage with each other and to work out their differences in their own messy and amateurish ways.

That can only spell the end of democratic self-governance.

So the other democratic danger in big philanthropy is to our self-efficacy, which we lose by handing our problems over to the experts. Certainly we should involve them and listen to them, but we should be putting our own hands and minds to work on these problems, not just the ones offered—as helpful as they are—by Bill and Melinda Gates.

What can be done about these dangers? Schambra’s advice resonates here:

There is nothing quite like seeing citizens coming into the first realization of their own agency, and living into their ability to control their own lives.

American civil society has over the centuries been the arena within which everyday citizens come to realize their own democratic agency, no matter how marginal, neglected, or oppressed they may otherwise have been in this imperfect democracy of ours.

It is no one else’s job to solve the problems around us. We can turn to others for help, but it’s our own work to do.

Seeing Good at Work

Turning traditional philanthropy on its head, The Philanthropic Ventures Foundation empowers communities through innovative grants that are designed to be small, simple, and fast. The founder, Bill Somerville, pioneered this “grassroots philanthropy” (also the title of his book) by simply taking faxed, one-page applications from teachers looking to better serve their students.

If you want to learn more about their work, I encourage you to watch this fantastic TEDx talk by Somerville. It’s one of my favorites.

Promotional Stuff

That talk by Bill Somerville was delivered at TEDxBYU. This year’s event is entirely online, with incredible speakers filmed in remarkable locations. It runs tonight and tomorrow night, so be sure to get tickets right away. Find out more at:

www.TEDxBYU.com

Why Philanthropy Matters

Why Philanthropy Matters

The secret superpower of a thriving economy

Have you ever wondered why the United States—and specifically Silicon Valley—became the epicenter of the Information Age? Why of all places did this become the home to Google, Intel, HP, Apple, Facebook, and so many others?

I’m sure you have some ideas, but I doubt philanthropy is one of them. And so I strongly recommend you read Why Philanthropy Matters by Zoltan Acs. It’s one of my favorite books. Acs makes the compelling case that philanthropy is the secret superpower of American capitalism.

As for Silicon Valley, the pivotal moment of its destiny takes us back to 1885. Leland and Jane Stanford became incredibly wealthy from Leland’s ownership in multiple railroad companies. (He presided over the famous Golden Spike ceremony that joined the east and west segments of the Transcontinental Railroad.) Their wealth reached a peak of around $50 million, or $1.3 billion in today’s dollars, even if it was earned in the same questionable ways as the other robber barons of his time.

But in 1884, the couple’s only son died from typhoid fever at just 15 years-old. It was in their heartbreak that they made a decision that reverberated for decades to come. Declaring that “the children of California shall be our children,” Leland and Jane dedicated nearly half their wealth and over 8,000 acres to found Stanford University.

In the US, we’re accustomed to seeing huge philanthropic gifts like this, but they are hardly the norm in world history. In fact, the US economy is remarkably unique this way: marked by entrepreneurs of middling origins (Leland’s father was a farmer and Jane’s a merchant) who go on to incredible wealth and then historically large philanthropy. From Carnegie’s libraries to Gates’ health and education funding, this has been a distinctive feature of the American economy.

Nearly every major tech company today—along with their jobs, wealth, and products—traces its origin in whole or in part to that single philanthropic act by the Stanfords. Hewlett and Packard attended there, as did the Google founders, Page and Brin. Of course, this doesn’t even begin to contemplate all of the doctors, researchers, educators, and other professionals who started there.

This story can be told over and over with other schools, too, and extends well beyond the elite universities to state schools, HBCUs, and even community colleges that have opened more doors to opportunity than we can count. Although there are legitimate criticisms of education philanthropy, there’s little doubt that its impact on the whole has been immense.

And this is just one area among many that philanthropy in the US has fueled over the years. Professor Acs makes the case difficult to refute. Libraries, community centers, hospitals, and parks all enjoy philanthropic funding along with tax dollars. But for a history of massive philanthropy, the United States today would be a fraction of its size and vibrancy. And our future will likely depend on it in just the same way, a point that Acs notes with concern.

(Next week we’ll look at the other side of this issue, and the argument that modern philanthropy could threaten the very things that make the US healthy and strong.)


Seeing Good at Work

The more opportunity we can create for everyone, the better off we all are. WeThrive works with low-income youth in grades 7–10 to train them in entrepreneurship and leadership, setting them up with life skills that lead to better futures for themselves and their communities. The program scales by training teachers and administrators in the curriculum.

Beginning with a pilot in 2010, WeThrive has since grown to reach over 2,000 kids per year in cities across the US. The students who participate get experience starting real businesses earning real money. 81% of kids who participate continue with their ventures after completing the program.

Promotional Stuff

If you’re on Twitter, consider following me there. I use Twitter to draw attention to good ideas and current issues related to having an impact on the world.I didn’t need a reason to love donuts any more than I already do, but now they’re out there saving lives. ♥️ 🍩 @krispykreme But seriously, this is great #csr.fortune.com/2021/03/22/kri…Krispy Kreme will offer free doughnuts—all year long—to people with COVID-19 vaccination cardsBring your vaccination card to any location for a free Original Glazed through the end of the year—and you can redeem the offer as often as you’d like.

NEWSLETTER

Sign up to get How to Help delivered to your inbox.

No spam and I don’t share your info.

Great! Please check your inbox and click the confirmation link.
Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.