Monday, December 15, 2014

It turns out empathy is not a skill everyone possesses

Yesterday Brad Feld communicated on his blog that he and his wife Amy are huge believers in empathy, in response to also having watched the video I talked about in my last post.
But then, there was a comment from a software engineer / musician with a PhD degree —a clearly intelligent and thoughtful individual — which I though was intriguing. It said:
“I use the term ‘empathy’ when I have actual personal experience with whatever the other individual is going through. I don’t think there’s really any other justification to be able to claim that you are feeling or experiencing what they are. I use the term ‘sympathy’ otherwise.
I really don’t like this presentation of her views of these words. She’s adding semantic to the words which is overloading the definitions. And the presentation makes it sound like sympathy is bad and empathy is good. These are fairly precise terms and some of the implications she mentions are beyond their definitions. For example, she focuses on the ‘connection’ concept which really has nothing to do with sympathy vs empathy. I can sympathize with someone and still connect with them. Likewise, I can empathize with someone and not connect with them at all.”
To which I replied:
I actually get how you look at this, but I’d assert you’re possibly making assumptions about these definitions.
If, God forbid, you ended up with a terminal disease, for example, which statement would you rather hear, ‘Oh my God you poor thing’, or ‘Wow, f**k man, I really get it’?
That’s the difference.
You don’t need to be terminally ill or have come in close contact with a person who was in order to have empathy with someone who is in that situation, contrary to your logic.”
He then counter-replied with:
“Actually, you do IMHO. How can you have empathy for someone who is terminally ill unless you’re terminally ill yourself? I do not presume to know what or how someone is feeling unless I’ve been exposed to it myself. I consider that arrogant.
If I was terminally ill and someone claimed to have empathy for me, I’d be put off since they obviously don’t know what they are talking about. In your example, that would be engendered in me if they, like you say, said “I really get it.” I’d think, no, you don’t.”
At that point, I felt the urge to further engage, but I decided not to proceed as I felt it is not my place to over-engage on someone else’s blog. And so I decided to excogitate on it here — where only perhaps a few hundred people will read it :-)
BTW, my response to something like this would be, “Yes perhaps, I’ll never quite know what it’s like to be in your situation, I can only try to imagine, but it definitely seems like it is not what you had planned for yourself.” And then I’d allow them to share with me what’s it’s really like — if they were so inclined to share, and if it didn’t seem inappropriate, probably depending on how much prior connection I had with them.
At first I had assumed that the gentleman had misunderstood the definitions involved, but that doesn’t seem so much the case.
Referring to my all-time favorite dictionary, a reprint of 1828's ‘American Dictionary of the English Language” by Noah Webster — a most definitive work — the entry for “sympathize” says:
“v.i 
1.To have a common feeling, as of bodily pleasure or pain.
The mind will sympathize so much with the anguish and debility of the body , that it will be too distracted to fix itself in meditation. — Buckminster
2. To feel in consequence of what another feels; to be affected by feelings similar to those of another, in consequence of knowing the person to be thus affected.
We sympathize with our friends in distress; we feel some pain when we see them pained, or when we are informed of their distresses, even at a distance.
[It is generally and properly used of suffering and pain, and not of pleasure or joy. It may be sometimes used with greater latitude.]
Mr. Webster states that the word originates from a combination of two Greek words which meant “with passion”.
There is no entry in that dictionary for “empathize.”
So 186 years ago, there was only one word to express both concepts: “sympathy”.
And the divergence in meanings which has since ensued is not consistent across the several modern dictionaries I’ve checked.
So I did a little further research and came up with the following links to these relevant sites:
  1. Diffen
  2. Grammarist
  3. Vocabulary
  4. Dictionary
  5. Grammar-monster
In summary, “sympathy” offers several definitions, one of which for example, is “relation or harmony between bodies of such nature that vibrations in one cause sympathetic vibrations in the other or others”. (Webster New World).
Another one is “harmony of or agreement of feeling”. (Dictionary app)
But the one which universally applies to the “empathy vs sympathy” discussion has strong connotations to pity in some dictionaries, as in “pity or compassion felt for another’s trouble.
That is the very element in my mind which creates the need for an alternate word, i.e. “empathy”.
And that is also why sympathy is not a vibe I personally would want to be the recipient of, and why Dr BrenĂ© Brow’s YouTube video is so powerful that it has garnered 3,180,998 views at the time of writing.
Now, here are some interesting excerpts about “empathy” from the above links:
“[Empathy is] understanding what others are feeling because you have experienced it yourself or can put yourself in their shoes.”
“When you understand and feel another’s feelings for your yourself, you have empathy. It’s often spoken of as a character attribute that people have to varying degrees. For example, if hearing a tragic news story makes you feel almost as if the story concerned you personally, you have the ability to empathize.”
“Empathy was first used to describe how a viewer’s appreciation of art depends on her ability to project her personality onto the art. These days it applies to anything you can basically “project your personality” on. When you feel what someone else feels, that’s empathy.”
“If you’re feeling empathy, you’re in (em) the feeling. If it’s sympathy, you’re feeling sorry for someone.”
“The noun empathy denotes the ability to understand and share the feelings of another.”
In short — and that is the important point IMO — empathy is a skill. It is a character attribute. It’s obviously not that hard to have empathy for someone if you have been in the same exact situation as them.
Where it gets more difficult, or even impossible for some — is to be able to put oneself in the shoes of another, while never having been in that particular situation yourself.
I find it pessimistic and fatalistic to believe that those who can’t feel empathy are stuck in that condition forever.
And so I’m going to postulate that empathizing can be an acquired skill; it’s a more hopeful view to behold.
I consider personally having the ability to have empathy, and I find that one of  the things that helps me is to constantly be asking, “What is it like to…?”
This is so much the case that I’ve created the website PreAcquaint.com, centering around inspiring stories from real people, the titles of which, must absolutely all begin with one of only three options:
“What it’s like to …”
“What it was like to…”
What it will be like to…”
It’s baked in the interface. (And sorry, no app or mobile-responsive design in sight for now. It’s currently all web.)
Not all stories center around the human plight, the sorrows, the suffering, etc.
There are stories about pleasure, travel, various cities, etc.
But all stories tell what something is like.
The concept (if it’d ever take off in earnest), provides a platform to build empathy.
For example, this story completely touched me and made me want to go hug my wife afterwards. It gave me empathy for someone who loses their other half. In fact, I often think about this story.
Another story is about this 16 years old girl who will die unless she gets some very needed medical treatment which her family can’t afford.
Or the story about the child with autism.
And I could go on and on.
So only yesterday have I realized that empathy is not a skill that everyone possesses. I’m late to the party, I suppose.
Of course, it explains a lot about the world we live in, in retrospect :-)
I remain hopeful that the concept will continue to move to the forefront of our society, and that more and more people will fully develop the skill.
Trying to get an “Empathy Day” instituted around the world would be a worthwhile goal for someone brave enough for the task.
In parting, another comment on Brad’s blog yesterday said:
We don’t understand enough about Empathy. When it’s warranted? How is it helpful? How much of it is useful? How to deal with too much empathy? How to develop empathy skills? How to turn it on? How to turn is off? How to use it correctly?
My reply to that one was:
It’s not something you turn on and off like a piece of appliance. It’s a mindset you develop. It’s a continuous awareness of the possible state of mind others can potentially be found in. It’s a sensibility you acquire. It’s an asset you nurture. It’s not something you over-think, it’s something you feel your way through.”

Friday, December 12, 2014

Empathy is feeling *with* others


The central reason why I wanted to create PreAcquaint.com was to create more empathy in the world through inspiring stories from real people which share what a particular set of experiences is or was like.
Today, I came across this video while reading the comments section on my favorite blog.
 
It is the most awesome explanation I’ve ever come across of what empathy truly is.
As human beings, we all have our share of challenges to be dealing with, whether we’re transparent or opaque about our respective situations.
If we could get ourselves outside of our shells long enough to sense and come in contact with what others are also feeling, we could thereby dramatically bolster the quality of our lives, as well as others’.
Technology currently offers a lot a promises to take humanity to a higher place. But materialism is still way too prevalent.
Unless we can break down the barriers between one human to another, we’ll be leaving on the table many opportunities to feel truly alive.

Wednesday, December 3, 2014

Jettison

Having been placed recently in a situation in which I need to re-organize my life (no details required), I have made a few changes as to my scope of activity.
First of all, my wife and I just went to Sint Maarten for nine days, and for the first five or six of which, I couldn’t think of anything business or startup related, even if I had tried to.
In the last few days of the trip, I started to hatch a plan about how to proceed moving forward.
It feels great to have simplified my life and to have made more room in it to focus on what really matters.
I have let go of several endeavors that were just too peripheral in the grand scheme of things, one of which being the fact that the Toronto Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Meetup Group no longer exists.
And for now, I’m pursuing PreAcquaint.com simply as a passion of mine for creating empathy through inspiring stories from real people. It's something I like to see in the world.
Sometimes we’re simply forced to focus on what really matters; but it can be quite liberating, as a side effect.
Below:
Taking the time with my wife to cook real food, as opposed to 'quickly buying something pre-cooked' and then rushing to do a zillion things.
 

Thursday, November 13, 2014

The trick with the freemium model

Fred Wilson wrote a blog post this morning titled, “The First Law of Internet Physics”. There is a strong chance you've already read it anyhow.
If you haven't, it's one of those axiomatic reads that can get your mind fired up.
I love it when I read something that seems to hit on a universal truth and my mental faculties just start racing up.
It’s like revving a fun car.
What I found even more intriguing, however, was a comment on Fred's blog that to a degree mirrored my own thoughts.
It said: “The trick with freemium is knowing how much (or what parts) of your inventory (be it software, music, or media content) to give away for free.”
That stirred my thinking along a certain line.
More specifically I would say it helped me come up with this little construct: the adjudication of what gets included and excluded in a particular freemium offering needs to be made from the point of view of the user who wants the free offering, and in such as way so as to make her happy — elated actually, and certainly not frustrated — all the while finding the right triggers that will make her feel she needs to upgrade to the paid offering without feeling she has been manipulated or coerced. She needs to feel it is in her best interests to get the additional (paid for) experience.
I mean every single word in the underlined text above.
I have enough experience already as a product manager, and as a website user, more importantly, to viscerally know the above to to be true.
I will personally keep this in mind moving forward; and if my little "reflection" here can be of use to someone else, then I’ll consider that to be a boon.

A humble beginning for a lofty ambition


Last evening we held the first meetup.
There were two of us. That’s right — two. Myself and a gentleman called Glen.
I nonetheless consider it a success.
For one thing, the food was great, and we had an interesting conversation about our mutual philosophies and our individual takes about technology, innovation and entrepreneurship.
Glen is a veteran of the tech industry with a rich experience.
We both see eye-to-eye regarding the ideology of our Meetup group, The Toronto Entrepreneurial Ecosystem.
Let me state what that is: we are fostering a tight-knit and supportive startup community in Toronto based on the idea of giving-before-getting.
A lot can be done to make the tech scene very special here in Toronto, and that largely consists of caring about it and contributing to it. In other words, what’s needed, in my opinion, is the opposite of “looking out for number one” and “what’s in it for me?”
A least now there is a small nucleus from which we can grow this thing.
Glen and I shall both talk to other people about the group.
And it will be great to gradually have more people join us.
So I encourage everyone to decide to take some part in making the Toronto startup community really bond together — even if you'd end up not joining our particular endeavor.
(Perhaps you’re doing that already, and to a much higher level than I am even. If that’s the case, please reach out to me so I know who you are. If nothing else, it'll minimally make for an interesting communication exchange.)
All it takes is a “why not” attitude and a mindset to get involved without expecting nothing specific or concrete in return. Karma will take care of that.
Building such a community is a long term effort. It doesn’t have to start with a bang — if members who truly share the ethos get added bit by bit over time, the results will be pretty dramatic.
And this effort is not just about the meetups themselves. It is about fostering a vibrant group which will subsequently communicate using multiple channels to stay connected.

Sunday, November 9, 2014

Using crowdfunding as a community-building tool

Fred Wilson wrote a blog post a few hours ago about the “all or nothing” vs “keep what you raise” crowdfunding models in which he describes the latter as lame and convincingly explains why. I urge you to read the post in the unlikely event you haven’t already.
I thought about it for a few minutes and agreed on all counts with Fred’s wisdom in the context in which he’s discussing the issue, namely for a venture raising money and essentially being subject to the same market dynamics that apply to all traditional fundraising channels.
But my mind immediately started to race in other directions, considering alternate views, and I can envision a use case in which crowdfunding could become a community-building tool in our society.
Currently, crowdfunding is largely popular for bringing hardware products to market.
But there are other motivations that can come — and are already coming — into play as well.
We can use crowdfunding, not only for charity, as for example Razoo and Causes are doing, but also as a platform to give the underdog, among others, a sense of belonging to the community.
Examples of this are / would be:
  1. 1. Someone who is undergoing rehabilitation of some kind, either from a medical condition, from an accident, a life of crime or drugs, to raise money for building something of worth.
  2. 2. The elderly who could be given a sense of purpose as well as a stream of revenue from also building something of worth.
  3. 3. Children with an entrepreneurial streak could be given an avenue by which to get started.
  4. 4. Even the homeless can be helped through crowdfunding.
Each scenario would need to be evaluated separately and safeguards put in place as required, it goes without saying, but the social impact could be enormous.
I pointed out to Fred, in the comment section of his blog, that in the event where the motivations of the backers are something other than helping getting a business off the ground in the purely transactional sense, it matters less which of the two above-mentioned crowdfunding model is used.
He concurred and modified his post to include an exclusion for charity use cases.

Tuesday, November 4, 2014

Is being an entrepreneur the same as being a business owner?

Let’s say someone has been thinking about doing a startup and is finally getting going, does that make her an entrepreneur yet? What if she has experience as a business owner? Does that count?
Well, here are a few definitions:
StartupA company that is in the first stage of its operations. These companies are often initially bank rolled by their entrepreneurial founders as they attempt to capitalize on developing a product or service for which they believe there is a demand. Due to limited revenue or high costs, most of these small scale operations are not sustainable in the long term without additional funding from venture capitalists.
Here is an even better definition, in my opinion: In the world of business, the word “startup” goes beyond a company just getting off the ground. The term startup is also associated with a business that is typically technology oriented and has high growth potential. Startups have some unique struggles, especially in regard to financing. That’s because investors are looking for the highest potential return on investment, while balancing the associated risks.
Lastly, I find Dave McClure’s definition awesome:
A ‘startup’ is a company that is confused about —
  1. What its product is.
  2. Who its customers are.
  3. How to make money.
  4. As soon as it figures out all 3 things, it ceases being a startup and becomes a real business.
Except most times, that doesn’t happen.”
1) EntrepreneurA person who organizes and operates a business or businesses, taking on greater than normal financial risks in order to do so.
also
2) Entrepreneurship is the pursuit of opportunity without regard to resources currently controlled.
Business ownerAn individual who owns and operates a business whether it be small or large. This individual also profits from the net gain of the company.
As you can see, there is a difference between a business owner and an entrepreneur, and that difference is largely high growth and risk factors.
There is also a difference, obviously, between an entrepreneur and an aspiring entrepreneur.
My personal approach has been to first appoint myself as a startup founder and simply get going somehow.
Then the plan is to gradually and systematically keep progressing from being an aspiring to being a bona fide entrepreneur.
I have been a business owner for over 26 years, but that doesn’t make me into an entrepreneur.
There is a difference — a big difference.
As I keep studying the venture capital industry, I notice that VCs see definite distinctions within entrepreneurship itself as well: a first-time entrepreneur is a far cry from a second or third time entrepreneur to them.
Let’s not fool ourselves, let’s be prepared.