The abstract seems already highly tendentious. It acts like 90% nonoverlap (whatever that means precisely) between sets A and B is very small overlap, when at a population level it is huge overlap. If the set of yough high performers and the set of adult high performers have 10% overlap, it means that youth high performance is a tremendously good indicator for adult high performance.
The problem is not just empathy. It is also ethics. The fine distinction between opting out of A and opting out of B described in the post served to justify ignoring the opt out request. That's lazy ethically. The entire US business sector's customer relations are completely compromised ethically. It's taken to extremes in tech contexts.
In large organizations motivated reasoning trumps ethics. Behavior starts working along incentive gradients like an ant heap. Spend enough time in an environment like that and you learn to frame every selfish decision as good for the customer.
I think maintaining ethics in large organizations is one of the main challenges of our time, now that mega corps dominate our time and attention.
> Spend enough time in an environment like that and you learn to frame every selfish decision as good for the customer.
This reminds me of "in order to save the environment, we are going to delete all of your recordings older than 2 years, in 2 weeks. You can't download them."
