0:00:00.391,0:00:02.977
We are today talking[br]about moral persuasion:

0:00:03.001,0:00:06.983
What is moral and immoral[br]in trying to change people's behaviors

0:00:07.007,0:00:09.460
by using technology and using design?

0:00:09.484,0:00:11.316
And I don't know what you expect,

0:00:11.340,0:00:13.293
but when I was thinking about that issue,

0:00:13.317,0:00:17.356
I early on realized what I'm not able[br]to give you are answers.

0:00:17.943,0:00:20.714
I'm not able to tell you[br]what is moral or immoral,

0:00:20.738,0:00:23.285
because we're living[br]in a pluralist society.

0:00:23.309,0:00:27.551
My values can be radically[br]different from your values,

0:00:27.575,0:00:30.752
which means that what I consider[br]moral or immoral based on that

0:00:30.776,0:00:34.388
might not necessarily be[br]what you consider moral or immoral.

0:00:34.769,0:00:37.983
But I also realized[br]there is one thing that I could give you,

0:00:38.007,0:00:40.540
and that is what this guy[br]behind me gave the world --

0:00:40.564,0:00:41.714
Socrates.

0:00:41.738,0:00:43.133
It is questions.

0:00:43.157,0:00:45.790
What I can do and what[br]I would like to do with you

0:00:45.814,0:00:47.759
is give you, like that initial question,

0:00:47.783,0:00:51.193
a set of questions[br]to figure out for yourselves,

0:00:51.217,0:00:54.858
layer by layer, like peeling an onion,

0:00:54.882,0:00:59.902
getting at the core of what you believe[br]is moral or immoral persuasion.

0:01:00.299,0:01:04.340
And I'd like to do that[br]with a couple of examples of technologies

0:01:04.364,0:01:09.344
where people have used game elements[br]to get people to do things.

0:01:10.083,0:01:13.123
So it's at first a very simple,[br]very obvious question

0:01:13.147,0:01:14.343
I would like to give you:

0:01:14.367,0:01:17.054
What are your intentions[br]if you are designing something?

0:01:17.408,0:01:20.781
And obviously, intentions[br]are not the only thing,

0:01:20.805,0:01:23.983
so here is another example[br]for one of these applications.

0:01:24.007,0:01:27.094
There are a couple of these kinds[br]of Eco dashboards right now --

0:01:27.118,0:01:28.578
dashboards built into cars --

0:01:28.602,0:01:31.434
which try to motivate you[br]to drive more fuel-efficiently.

0:01:31.458,0:01:33.231
This here is Nissan's MyLeaf,

0:01:33.255,0:01:36.319
where your driving behavior[br]is compared with the driving behavior

0:01:36.343,0:01:37.494
of other people,

0:01:37.518,0:01:40.795
so you can compete for who drives a route[br]the most fuel-efficiently.

0:01:40.819,0:01:43.296
And these things are[br]very effective, it turns out --

0:01:43.320,0:01:47.259
so effective that they motivate people[br]to engage in unsafe driving behaviors,

0:01:47.283,0:01:49.045
like not stopping at a red light,

0:01:49.069,0:01:51.784
because that way you have[br]to stop and restart the engine,

0:01:51.808,0:01:54.531
and that would use quite[br]some fuel, wouldn't it?

0:01:55.078,0:01:59.487
So despite this being[br]a very well-intended application,

0:01:59.511,0:02:01.886
obviously there was a side effect of that.

0:02:01.910,0:02:04.458
Here's another example[br]for one of these side effects.

0:02:04.482,0:02:09.266
Commendable: a site that allows parents[br]to give their kids little badges

0:02:09.290,0:02:11.948
for doing the things[br]that parents want their kids to do,

0:02:11.972,0:02:13.288
like tying their shoes.

0:02:13.312,0:02:15.556
And at first that sounds very nice,

0:02:15.580,0:02:17.730
very benign, well-intended.

0:02:17.754,0:02:21.524
But it turns out, if you look into[br]research on people's mindset,

0:02:21.548,0:02:23.035
caring about outcomes,

0:02:23.059,0:02:24.832
caring about public recognition,

0:02:24.856,0:02:28.717
caring about these kinds[br]of public tokens of recognition

0:02:28.741,0:02:30.735
is not necessarily very helpful

0:02:30.759,0:02:33.066
for your long-term[br]psychological well-being.

0:02:33.090,0:02:35.766
It's better if you care[br]about learning something.

0:02:35.790,0:02:37.695
It's better when you care about yourself

0:02:37.719,0:02:40.293
than how you appear[br]in front of other people.

0:02:40.761,0:02:45.802
So that kind of motivational tool[br]that is used actually, in and of itself,

0:02:45.826,0:02:47.734
has a long-term side effect,

0:02:47.758,0:02:49.568
in that every time we use a technology

0:02:49.592,0:02:52.766
that uses something[br]like public recognition or status,

0:02:52.790,0:02:55.166
we're actually positively endorsing this

0:02:55.190,0:02:58.600
as a good and normal thing[br]to care about --

0:02:58.624,0:03:01.488
that way, possibly having[br]a detrimental effect

0:03:01.512,0:03:05.367
on the long-term psychological[br]well-being of ourselves as a culture.

0:03:05.391,0:03:08.035
So that's a second, very obvious question:

0:03:08.059,0:03:10.370
What are the effects[br]of what you're doing --

0:03:10.394,0:03:14.518
the effects you're having[br]with the device, like less fuel,

0:03:14.542,0:03:17.247
as well as the effects[br]of the actual tools you're using

0:03:17.271,0:03:18.945
to get people to do things --

0:03:18.969,0:03:20.540
public recognition?

0:03:20.564,0:03:23.485
Now is that all -- intention, effect?

0:03:23.509,0:03:26.643
Well, there are some technologies[br]which obviously combine both.

0:03:26.667,0:03:29.454
Both good long-term and short-term effects

0:03:29.478,0:03:32.287
and a positive intention[br]like Fred Stutzman's "Freedom,"

0:03:32.311,0:03:34.518
where the whole point[br]of that application is --

0:03:34.542,0:03:38.267
well, we're usually so bombarded[br]with constant requests by other people,

0:03:38.291,0:03:39.447
with this device,

0:03:39.471,0:03:42.951
you can shut off the Internet[br]connectivity of your PC of choice

0:03:42.975,0:03:44.423
for a pre-set amount of time,

0:03:44.447,0:03:46.418
to actually get some work done.

0:03:46.442,0:03:49.593
And I think most of us will agree[br]that's something well-intended,

0:03:49.617,0:03:51.837
and also has good consequences.

0:03:51.861,0:03:53.507
In the words of Michel Foucault,

0:03:53.531,0:03:55.471
it is a "technology of the self."

0:03:55.495,0:03:58.332
It is a technology[br]that empowers the individual

0:03:58.356,0:04:00.171
to determine its own life course,

0:04:00.195,0:04:01.714
to shape itself.

0:04:02.150,0:04:05.134
But the problem is,[br]as Foucault points out,

0:04:05.158,0:04:06.943
that every technology of the self

0:04:06.967,0:04:10.412
has a technology of domination[br]as its flip side.

0:04:10.436,0:04:15.039
As you see in today's modern[br]liberal democracies,

0:04:15.063,0:04:19.746
the society, the state,[br]not only allows us to determine our self,

0:04:19.770,0:04:20.921
to shape our self,

0:04:20.945,0:04:22.936
it also demands it of us.

0:04:22.960,0:04:24.921
It demands that we optimize ourselves,

0:04:24.945,0:04:26.785
that we control ourselves,

0:04:26.809,0:04:29.520
that we self-manage continuously,

0:04:29.544,0:04:33.437
because that's the only way[br]in which such a liberal society works.

0:04:33.461,0:04:37.729
These technologies want us[br]to stay in the game

0:04:37.753,0:04:40.526
that society has devised for us.

0:04:40.550,0:04:42.837
They want us to fit in even better.

0:04:42.861,0:04:45.439
They want us to optimize[br]ourselves to fit in.

0:04:46.368,0:04:49.447
Now, I don't say that[br]is necessarily a bad thing;

0:04:50.033,0:04:54.361
I just think that this example[br]points us to a general realization,

0:04:54.385,0:04:58.188
and that is: no matter what technology[br]or design you look at,

0:04:58.212,0:05:01.233
even something we consider[br]as well-intended

0:05:01.257,0:05:04.223
and as good in its effects[br]as Stutzman's Freedom,

0:05:04.247,0:05:06.954
comes with certain values embedded in it.

0:05:06.978,0:05:08.914
And we can question these values.

0:05:08.938,0:05:10.882
We can question: Is it a good thing

0:05:10.906,0:05:14.390
that all of us continuously[br]self-optimize ourselves

0:05:14.414,0:05:16.425
to fit better into that society?

0:05:16.449,0:05:17.941
Or to give you another example:

0:05:17.965,0:05:20.441
What about a piece[br]of persuasive technology

0:05:20.465,0:05:23.656
that convinces Muslim women[br]to wear their headscarves?

0:05:23.680,0:05:25.732
Is that a good or a bad technology

0:05:25.756,0:05:28.319
in its intentions or in its effects?

0:05:28.343,0:05:32.597
Well, that basically depends on[br]the kind of values you bring to bear

0:05:32.621,0:05:34.858
to make these kinds of judgments.

0:05:34.882,0:05:36.410
So that's a third question:

0:05:36.434,0:05:37.962
What values do you use to judge?

0:05:38.588,0:05:39.929
And speaking of values:

0:05:39.953,0:05:43.309
I've noticed that in the discussion[br]about moral persuasion online

0:05:43.333,0:05:44.970
and when I'm talking with people,

0:05:44.994,0:05:47.661
more often than not,[br]there is a weird bias.

0:05:48.203,0:05:51.099
And that bias is that we're asking:

0:05:51.123,0:05:53.936
Is this or that "still" ethical?

0:05:53.960,0:05:56.610
Is it "still" permissible?

0:05:56.634,0:05:57.832
We're asking things like:

0:05:57.856,0:06:00.045
Is this Oxfam donation form,

0:06:00.069,0:06:03.117
where the regular monthly[br]donation is the preset default,

0:06:03.141,0:06:05.220
and people, maybe without intending it,

0:06:05.244,0:06:09.056
are encouraged or nudged[br]into giving a regular donation

0:06:09.080,0:06:10.569
instead of a one-time donation,

0:06:10.593,0:06:11.936
is that "still' permissible?

0:06:11.960,0:06:13.323
Is it "still" ethical?

0:06:13.347,0:06:14.826
We're fishing at the low end.

0:06:15.619,0:06:18.093
But in fact, that question,[br]"Is it 'still' ethical?"

0:06:18.117,0:06:19.898
is just one way of looking at ethics.

0:06:19.922,0:06:24.814
Because if you look at the beginning[br]of ethics in Western culture,

0:06:24.838,0:06:28.370
you see a very different idea[br]of what ethics also could be.

0:06:28.710,0:06:32.707
For Aristotle, ethics[br]was not about the question,

0:06:32.731,0:06:35.003
"Is that still good, or is it bad?"

0:06:35.027,0:06:38.455
Ethics was about the question[br]of how to live life well.

0:06:38.956,0:06:41.137
And he put that in the word "arête,"

0:06:41.161,0:06:43.916
which we, from [Ancient Greek],[br]translate as "virtue."

0:06:43.940,0:06:45.580
But really, it means "excellence."

0:06:45.604,0:06:51.035
It means living up to your own[br]full potential as a human being.

0:06:51.677,0:06:53.333
And that is an idea that, I think,

0:06:53.357,0:06:56.054
Paul Richard Buchanan[br]put nicely in a recent essay,

0:06:56.078,0:06:58.221
where he said,[br]"Products are vivid arguments

0:06:58.245,0:07:00.368
about how we should live our lives."

0:07:00.826,0:07:03.403
Our designs are not ethical or unethical

0:07:03.427,0:07:08.017
in that they're using ethical[br]or unethical means of persuading us.

0:07:08.401,0:07:09.971
They have a moral component

0:07:09.995,0:07:14.222
just in the kind of vision[br]and the aspiration of the good life

0:07:14.246,0:07:15.594
that they present to us.

0:07:16.181,0:07:19.684
And if you look into the designed[br]environment around us

0:07:19.708,0:07:20.880
with that kind of lens,

0:07:20.904,0:07:23.357
asking, "What is the vision[br]of the good life

0:07:23.381,0:07:26.119
that our products, our design,[br]present to us?",

0:07:26.143,0:07:28.419
then you often get the shivers,

0:07:28.443,0:07:30.771
because of how little[br]we expect of each other,

0:07:30.795,0:07:34.685
of how little we actually[br]seem to expect of our life,

0:07:34.709,0:07:36.743
and what the good life looks like.

0:07:37.850,0:07:40.873
So that's a fourth question[br]I'd like to leave you with:

0:07:40.897,0:07:45.259
What vision of the good life[br]do your designs convey?

0:07:45.989,0:07:47.361
And speaking of design,

0:07:47.385,0:07:51.575
you'll notice that I already[br]broadened the discussion,

0:07:51.599,0:07:56.043
because it's not just persuasive[br]technology that we're talking about here,

0:07:56.067,0:08:00.144
it's any piece of design[br]that we put out here in the world.

0:08:00.168,0:08:01.568
I don't know whether you know

0:08:01.592,0:08:05.147
the great communication researcher[br]Paul Watzlawick who, back in the '60s,

0:08:05.171,0:08:07.682
made the argument[br]that we cannot not communicate.

0:08:07.706,0:08:10.307
Even if we choose to be silent,[br]we chose to be silent,

0:08:10.331,0:08:13.287
and we're communicating something[br]by choosing to be silent.

0:08:13.311,0:08:16.046
And in the same way[br]that we cannot not communicate,

0:08:16.070,0:08:17.601
we cannot not persuade:

0:08:17.625,0:08:19.636
whatever we do or refrain from doing,

0:08:19.660,0:08:24.025
whatever we put out there[br]as a piece of design, into the world,

0:08:24.049,0:08:26.096
has a persuasive component.

0:08:26.120,0:08:27.993
It tries to affect people.

0:08:28.017,0:08:31.764
It puts a certain vision of the good life[br]out there in front of us,

0:08:31.788,0:08:33.413
which is what Peter-Paul Verbeek,

0:08:33.437,0:08:36.153
the Dutch philosopher of technology, says.

0:08:36.177,0:08:40.125
No matter whether we as designers[br]intend it or not,

0:08:40.149,0:08:42.291
we materialize morality.

0:08:42.315,0:08:45.118
We make certain things[br]harder and easier to do.

0:08:45.142,0:08:47.353
We organize the existence of people.

0:08:47.377,0:08:48.528
We put a certain vision

0:08:48.552,0:08:51.956
of what good or bad or normal or usual is

0:08:51.980,0:08:53.131
in front of people,

0:08:53.155,0:08:55.555
by everything we put[br]out there in the world.

0:08:55.987,0:08:59.073
Even something as innocuous[br]as a set of school chairs

0:08:59.097,0:09:01.144
is a persuasive technology,

0:09:01.168,0:09:05.858
because it presents and materializes[br]a certain vision of the good life --

0:09:05.882,0:09:08.739
a good life in which teaching[br]and learning and listening

0:09:08.763,0:09:11.862
is about one person teaching,[br]the others listening;

0:09:11.886,0:09:15.939
in which it is about[br]learning-is-done-while-sitting;

0:09:15.963,0:09:17.558
in which you learn for yourself;

0:09:17.582,0:09:20.002
in which you're not supposed[br]to change these rules,

0:09:20.026,0:09:22.473
because the chairs[br]are fixed to the ground.

0:09:23.628,0:09:26.539
And even something as innocuous[br]as a single-design chair,

0:09:26.563,0:09:28.135
like this one by Arne Jacobsen,

0:09:28.159,0:09:29.935
is a persuasive technology,

0:09:29.959,0:09:33.002
because, again, it communicates[br]an idea of the good life:

0:09:33.475,0:09:38.400
a good life -- a life that you,[br]as a designer, consent to by saying,

0:09:38.424,0:09:41.931
"In a good life, goods are produced[br]as sustainably or unsustainably

0:09:41.955,0:09:43.566
as this chair.

0:09:43.590,0:09:45.567
Workers are treated as well or as badly

0:09:45.591,0:09:48.163
as the workers were treated[br]that built that chair."

0:09:48.502,0:09:50.803
The good life is a life[br]where design is important

0:09:50.827,0:09:53.748
because somebody obviously took[br]the time and spent the money

0:09:53.772,0:09:55.556
for that kind of well-designed chair;

0:09:55.580,0:09:56.984
where tradition is important,

0:09:57.008,0:10:00.174
because this is a traditional classic[br]and someone cared about this;

0:10:00.198,0:10:02.888
and where there is something[br]as conspicuous consumption,

0:10:02.912,0:10:05.868
where it is OK and normal to spend[br]a humongous amount of money

0:10:05.892,0:10:07.043
on such a chair,

0:10:07.067,0:10:09.640
to signal to other people[br]what your social status is.

0:10:09.664,0:10:12.981
So these are the kinds of layers,[br]the kinds of questions

0:10:13.005,0:10:14.975
I wanted to lead you through today;

0:10:14.999,0:10:18.033
the question of: What are the intentions[br]that you bring to bear

0:10:18.057,0:10:19.617
when you're designing something?

0:10:19.641,0:10:22.893
What are the effects, intended[br]and unintended, that you're having?

0:10:22.917,0:10:25.718
What are the values[br]you're using to judge those?

0:10:25.742,0:10:27.715
What are the virtues, the aspirations

0:10:27.739,0:10:29.767
that you're actually expressing in that?

0:10:30.140,0:10:31.997
And how does that apply,

0:10:32.021,0:10:34.007
not just to persuasive technology,

0:10:34.031,0:10:36.079
but to everything you design?

0:10:36.652,0:10:37.943
Do we stop there?

0:10:38.555,0:10:39.722
I don't think so.

0:10:40.031,0:10:44.469
I think that all of these things[br]are eventually informed

0:10:44.493,0:10:45.916
by the core of all of this,

0:10:45.940,0:10:49.031
and this is nothing but life itself.

0:10:49.334,0:10:52.051
Why, when the question[br]of what the good life is

0:10:52.075,0:10:54.414
informs everything that we design,

0:10:54.438,0:10:57.232
should we stop at design[br]and not ask ourselves:

0:10:57.256,0:10:59.246
How does it apply to our own life?

0:10:59.621,0:11:02.333
"Why should the lamp[br]or the house be an art object,

0:11:02.357,0:11:03.533
but not our life?"

0:11:03.557,0:11:05.040
as Michel Foucault puts it.

0:11:05.436,0:11:09.047
Just to give you a practical[br]example of Buster Benson.

0:11:09.071,0:11:11.329
This is Buster setting up[br]a pull-up machine

0:11:11.353,0:11:13.965
at the office of his new[br]start-up, Habit Labs,

0:11:13.989,0:11:17.204
where they're trying to build[br]other applications like "Health Month"

0:11:17.228,0:11:18.386
for people.

0:11:18.410,0:11:20.372
And why is he building a thing like this?

0:11:20.396,0:11:22.429
Well, here is the set of axioms

0:11:22.453,0:11:25.851
that Habit Labs, Buster's start-up,[br]put up for themselves

0:11:25.875,0:11:28.580
on how they wanted to work[br]together as a team

0:11:28.604,0:11:30.633
when they're building[br]these applications --

0:11:30.657,0:11:32.846
a set of moral principles[br]they set themselves

0:11:32.870,0:11:34.231
for working together --

0:11:34.255,0:11:35.493
one of them being,

0:11:35.517,0:11:38.604
"We take care of our own health[br]and manage our own burnout."

0:11:38.961,0:11:42.461
Because ultimately,[br]how can you ask yourselves

0:11:42.485,0:11:46.415
and how can you find an answer[br]on what vision of the good life

0:11:46.439,0:11:49.608
you want to convey and create[br]with your designs

0:11:49.632,0:11:51.362
without asking the question:

0:11:51.386,0:11:55.218
What vision of the good life[br]do you yourself want to live?

0:11:55.758,0:11:56.932
And with that,

0:11:57.685,0:11:59.097
I thank you.

0:11:59.121,0:12:03.277
(Applause)