Action's Antidotes

Action's Antidotes


Using Frequency And Motivation To Make Better Connections With Jaqui McCarthy Of Frequency Coders

January 24, 2022

 

Life is all about making the right connections. The people who you want to work with aren't necessarily going to be your best friends. Join your host Stephen Jaye as he talks to the CEO of TealHouse and the creator of Frequency Coder, Jaqui McCarthy. Jaqui explains the frequency coder as an onion with many layers. There are people inside and the distance between them will determine their compatibility. There are also all the layers that you have to keep in mind. Listen in if you want to understand the frequency coder and how it's different from a Myers Briggs test. Start understanding yourself today!
---

Listen to the podcast here:

Using Frequency And Motivation To Make Better Connections With Jaqui McCarthy Of Frequency Coders
Sometimes, a part of the journey needs to be understanding ourselves, others, who we are and how we interact with one another. This is where behavioral science comes in. My guest is Jaqui McCarthy. She is a behavioral scientist and serial entrepreneur, which I know a lot of you readers out there will be pursuing entrepreneurship eventually as a path. She has some interesting ideas about understanding our behaviors. We are all familiar with at least one of the personality tests, whether it's the Myers-Briggs or Big Five. Her idea is to measure this personality measure or motivations to understand ourselves on multiple dimensions.
---
Jaqui, welcome to the program.

Thank you for having me.

Thank you for joining. First of all, what would you describe behavioral science to really mean if you were to explain it in a minute or two?

Behavioral science understands how humans interact with others, the technology and then themselves within the technological platforms. You have these algorithms that are trying to understand humans. It's studying that and gathering actual measurable data to determine how these people behave.

It's not just how people think. It's how people are going to behave. A lot of the algorithms might think about what you said. Technology is trying to predict purchasing and shopping behavior. Do you see technology being used to understand behavior on a deeper level about things that matter beyond what you are going to buy?

In a positive light, we are very much struggling with that. Hopefully, we will be seeing a new generation of entrepreneurs coming out and creating more ethical algorithms. A lot of attention is, "How can we better understand consumers so we can sell them a bunch of crap they don't need?" In a few of the projects that I have taken on in the past, what we did is dove into trying to understand the human factor behind interacting with each other on platforms and how to optimize those connections between people.

We live in an era of loneliness and some of the negative consequences of loneliness. We are very disconnected. People are turning to violence, drugs, suicide and all these terrible things because we need human connection. Do you see hope in people understanding human behavior on this level and then designing algorithms to help us make better connections with one another? Do you see that as barely treading water and not making a difference?

It's going to depend a lot on where investors are going to put their money. Where is the return on ethical algorithms? Is there going to be a monetary return? It's not most likely a lot of the time. In the case of WiGo Trips, which was a platform that we developed, it's connecting random strangers to each other but understanding who they are so that when they do connect, their experiences are optimized. We had a way to monetize it by booking travel. It's going to be up to the entrepreneurs to find those monetization strategies or up to the investors to invest in things that aren't necessarily going to return the money but will make the world a better place.

One place I naturally go is some wealthy philanthropy. It's things like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. In their case,