Objectivity or empathy - what we really need in difficult choices?

Researchers from the University of Technology Sydney asked a question that sounds like a science fiction scenario but describes our reality: The Trusted Partner for financial decision making: Romantic partner or AI? You have to make an important financial decision, perhaps about buying an apartment, changing jobs, or a long-term investment. Who will you turn to? To a partner who shares your life with you, or to an algorithm that processes data?

This question is no longer purely theoretical. Research shows that more and more people are consulting AI on their financial decisions, treating it as an equal (and sometimes even more reliable) advisor than the person closest to them. This phenomenon makes us think about something fundamental: what exactly is a “good decision”?

The algorithm offers what a romantic partner cannot: complete objectivity. He does not remember yesterday’s quarrel, he has no hidden fears about the future, and he does not bring his family’s financial concerns into the discussion. It analyses numbers, patterns, and probabilities. He is like a surgeon who looks at the body through the prism of anatomy, not through the prism of relationships.

The partner, in turn, offers something that no algorithm has – contextual knowledge about ones live. He knows that this raise at work would mean more weekends in the office and less time with the kids. He remembers how the last move affected one’s well-being. He understands that a financial decision is never just a financial one – it is always a decision about the quality of life, about values, about who someone wants to be.

The tension between these two perspectives reveals something deeper. The algorithm’s rationality assumes that everything can be measured, compared, and optimized. But does our life really lend itself to such calculation? Behavioral economists have been showing for decades that humans don’t act like profit maximization machines – and perhaps that’s a good thing. Our “irrational” decisions often contain wisdom that numbers won’t capture.

The difficulty is that the partner can also be wrong, and systematically. He can unconsciously project his own fears onto our situation. They may have a different approach to risk that we cannot reconcile. He may, in the best of faith, advise something that will be unfavorable to us. Empathy without knowledge can be just as disastrous as knowledge without empathy.

Interestingly, research on trust in AI in financial decisions reveals a paradox. People often trust the algorithm more when a decision is “objectively” bad for their situation than they trust their partner when they intuitively sense that something is wrong. The algorithm protects against the discomfort of admitting that we have made a mistake – we can shift the responsibility to the “system”. A partner requires something more difficult from us: to bear the consequences together.

Perhaps this is the key. A good financial decision is neither purely rational nor purely emotional. It is the result of a dialogue between numbers and values, between optimization and quality of life, between what is possible and what we really want. AI can provide analytical acuity. A partner can provide emotional rooting. But it is up to us to decide how to combine these perspectives into a coherent whole.

So, the question perhaps is not “Partner or AI?” But maybe it is: how do you learn to use both by understanding each’s limitations? How to build decisions that are both financially wise and authentic in life? And can we recognize when we need numbers and when we need someone who just understands us?

The fact that we ask ourselves these questions says something important about our times. We live in a world where the line between the rational and the emotional, between the private and the algorithmic, is becoming increasingly fluid. And perhaps it is this fluidity – this inability to give easy answers – that is a sign of maturity, not confusion.

This article is part of the project “People and Algorithms in Organisations: Competences to Work in the Digital Environment” (DIGIT_People and algorithms), funded by the NAWA – Narodowa Agencja Wymiany Akademickiej (Polish National Agency for Academic Exchange). #DIGIT_NAWA #AI #ArtificialIntelligence #Management#Leadership #HumanAICollaboration #ComplementaryAI #AIStrategy #BusinessStrategy #DigitalTransformation #FutureOfWork #AIResearch #NAWA