I found a certain appeal to Spock back when I was in high school. Spock's dispassionate rationality ensures objectivity and minimizes error from emotional bias. More importantly, he did not feel anything. Girlfriend breaks up with me? Rather than agonize over that, rational Timothy would understand that there is a better choice for my former girlfriend.
Set in a more modern time and leaving teenage heartbreak and angst behind, how does Spock's view apply to today? A client 401k plan leaves because they believe they will get lower fees or better service elsewhere? While Spock might disagree with that logically, he would not argue the Plan Sponsor's decision. Given the Sponsor's view of facts, their decision is logical.
Fast forward to today and with maturity, experience, and living, Spock's logical approach is not always superior in human contexts. Passion and care serve critical, functional purposes. For example, in the concept known as Ethical Anchoring. rationality alone doesn't determine values; caring guides us toward what ought to matter (e.g., justice, well-being). Similarly, with Adaptive Intelligence, emotions offer fast, context-sensitive data—signals of urgency, threat, or value—which can complement rational analysis.
Rationality is a tool. Passion provides direction and human relevance. Optimal decision-making blends both. What is missing from the logical approach is passion and care. But the heart cannot be the sole decision maker.
It was against this backdrop that I listened to an interesting discussion between Simon Sinek (of the "Start with why" TED talk fame) and Steven Bartlett (The Diary of a CEO podcast host and British millionaire) on the the future of AI and what AI does not offer.
While the conversation was far-ranging (just over two hours), what struck me most was what AI cannot do. Steven commented on how he now receives well-written emails from friends and colleagues and excellently crafted pitch decks. He noted that he suspects his friends are using AI to write their emails because the emails contain words they have never used. What is missing in those emails is their authentic voice.
Likewise, he has started to note that the pitch decks he is receiving are beginning to look the same. Simon agreed with Steven and pointed out that one of the many things AI cannot do is "be genuine". Whichever program is being used to write the pitch deck in this case, it is not going to compare to a deck that is genuine and from the heart. Much like in the case of Spock and his logical approach, the heart is missing from this communication.
I was thinking about that while working on a Sunday as is my predilection. An employee at one of my client 401k plans emailed me and, after researching his account, I sent my reply. As always, I signed my email with, "In service, Timothy". Yes, I could change my email settings so that "In service, Timothy" is put on each email reply automatically. And yet the reason I do not do that is it is a reminder to me with each interaction as to who my client is and how happy I am to be able to help them. I am glad to have them as a client. It is a genuine from-the-heart closing.
Simon then follows this thread with an additional idea. Just as AI can never demonstrate being genuine (whether that is passion or caring) as it is just a program (logical thought it may be), what AI will also never be able to replicate is showing the learning from failure. It is true as I am where I am today because of my numerous face-plants. Can't say they were fun at the time. And yes, some of them still make me cringe when I reflect on them. But I am better for each and every stumble. I have learned from my mistakes and that comes across in my client presentations, one on one employee meetings, and in my writings. This is who I am, warts and all, with progress to show for my failures.
I haven't made it to the end of the Simon and Steven podcast but a natural question is whether AI will replace me. Even more relevant, aren't all 401k advisors the same? Don't we all offer the same solutions? In fact, if you took two 401k advisors who are the same age, same experience and licenses, with identical bodies of knowledge, aren't they virtually indistinguishable?
Not at all. We differ in the degree of passion and care we bring to the individual client. Clients will relate to us differently and likely establish trust and rapport with one 401k advisor over the other. We are unique in how we see the world and our approach. Yes, we will make mistakes and have bruises and bumps to show for it. This is what makes us human.
We are not just logical thinking machines. We are not computer programs that you feed data into and get back the same uniform answer. A successful advisor is also someone who gives a darn about his clients (many darns, I dare say so) and is passionate about their work and practice. There is an element of care that is missing in the Spock-version of human advisor. And AI will never be able to replicate the authenticity and heartbreak that is very much part of human existence.