1
00:00:00,391 --> 00:00:02,977
We are today talking
about moral persuasion:

2
00:00:03,001 --> 00:00:06,983
What is moral and immoral
in trying to change people's behaviors

3
00:00:07,007 --> 00:00:09,460
by using technology and using design?

4
00:00:09,484 --> 00:00:11,316
And I don't know what you expect,

5
00:00:11,340 --> 00:00:13,293
but when I was thinking about that issue,

6
00:00:13,317 --> 00:00:17,356
I early on realized what I'm not able
to give you are answers.

7
00:00:17,943 --> 00:00:20,714
I'm not able to tell you
what is moral or immoral,

8
00:00:20,738 --> 00:00:23,285
because we're living
in a pluralist society.

9
00:00:23,309 --> 00:00:27,551
My values can be radically
different from your values,

10
00:00:27,575 --> 00:00:30,752
which means that what I consider
moral or immoral based on that

11
00:00:30,776 --> 00:00:34,388
might not necessarily be
what you consider moral or immoral.

12
00:00:34,769 --> 00:00:37,983
But I also realized
there is one thing that I could give you,

13
00:00:38,007 --> 00:00:40,540
and that is what this guy
behind me gave the world --

14
00:00:40,564 --> 00:00:41,714
Socrates.

15
00:00:41,738 --> 00:00:43,133
It is questions.

16
00:00:43,157 --> 00:00:45,790
What I can do and what
I would like to do with you

17
00:00:45,814 --> 00:00:47,759
is give you, like that initial question,

18
00:00:47,783 --> 00:00:51,193
a set of questions
to figure out for yourselves,

19
00:00:51,217 --> 00:00:54,858
layer by layer, like peeling an onion,

20
00:00:54,882 --> 00:00:59,902
getting at the core of what you believe
is moral or immoral persuasion.

21
00:01:00,299 --> 00:01:04,340
And I'd like to do that
with a couple of examples of technologies

22
00:01:04,364 --> 00:01:09,344
where people have used game elements
to get people to do things.

23
00:01:10,083 --> 00:01:13,123
So it's at first a very simple,
very obvious question

24
00:01:13,147 --> 00:01:14,343
I would like to give you:

25
00:01:14,367 --> 00:01:17,054
What are your intentions
if you are designing something?

26
00:01:17,408 --> 00:01:20,781
And obviously, intentions
are not the only thing,

27
00:01:20,805 --> 00:01:23,983
so here is another example
for one of these applications.

28
00:01:24,007 --> 00:01:27,094
There are a couple of these kinds
of Eco dashboards right now --

29
00:01:27,118 --> 00:01:28,578
dashboards built into cars --

30
00:01:28,602 --> 00:01:31,434
which try to motivate you
to drive more fuel-efficiently.

31
00:01:31,458 --> 00:01:33,231
This here is Nissan's MyLeaf,

32
00:01:33,255 --> 00:01:36,319
where your driving behavior
is compared with the driving behavior

33
00:01:36,343 --> 00:01:37,494
of other people,

34
00:01:37,518 --> 00:01:40,795
so you can compete for who drives a route
the most fuel-efficiently.

35
00:01:40,819 --> 00:01:43,296
And these things are
very effective, it turns out --

36
00:01:43,320 --> 00:01:47,259
so effective that they motivate people
to engage in unsafe driving behaviors,

37
00:01:47,283 --> 00:01:49,045
like not stopping at a red light,

38
00:01:49,069 --> 00:01:51,784
because that way you have
to stop and restart the engine,

39
00:01:51,808 --> 00:01:54,531
and that would use quite
some fuel, wouldn't it?

40
00:01:55,078 --> 00:01:59,487
So despite this being
a very well-intended application,

41
00:01:59,511 --> 00:02:01,886
obviously there was a side effect of that.

42
00:02:01,910 --> 00:02:04,458
Here's another example
for one of these side effects.

43
00:02:04,482 --> 00:02:09,266
Commendable: a site that allows parents
to give their kids little badges

44
00:02:09,290 --> 00:02:11,948
for doing the things
that parents want their kids to do,

45
00:02:11,972 --> 00:02:13,288
like tying their shoes.

46
00:02:13,312 --> 00:02:15,556
And at first that sounds very nice,

47
00:02:15,580 --> 00:02:17,730
very benign, well-intended.

48
00:02:17,754 --> 00:02:21,524
But it turns out, if you look into
research on people's mindset,

49
00:02:21,548 --> 00:02:23,035
caring about outcomes,

50
00:02:23,059 --> 00:02:24,832
caring about public recognition,

51
00:02:24,856 --> 00:02:28,717
caring about these kinds
of public tokens of recognition

52
00:02:28,741 --> 00:02:30,735
is not necessarily very helpful

53
00:02:30,759 --> 00:02:33,066
for your long-term
psychological well-being.

54
00:02:33,090 --> 00:02:35,766
It's better if you care
about learning something.

55
00:02:35,790 --> 00:02:37,695
It's better when you care about yourself

56
00:02:37,719 --> 00:02:40,293
than how you appear
in front of other people.

57
00:02:40,761 --> 00:02:45,802
So that kind of motivational tool
that is used actually, in and of itself,

58
00:02:45,826 --> 00:02:47,734
has a long-term side effect,

59
00:02:47,758 --> 00:02:49,568
in that every time we use a technology

60
00:02:49,592 --> 00:02:52,766
that uses something
like public recognition or status,

61
00:02:52,790 --> 00:02:55,166
we're actually positively endorsing this

62
00:02:55,190 --> 00:02:58,600
as a good and normal thing
to care about --

63
00:02:58,624 --> 00:03:01,488
that way, possibly having
a detrimental effect

64
00:03:01,512 --> 00:03:05,367
on the long-term psychological
well-being of ourselves as a culture.

65
00:03:05,391 --> 00:03:08,035
So that's a second, very obvious question:

66
00:03:08,059 --> 00:03:10,370
What are the effects
of what you're doing --

67
00:03:10,394 --> 00:03:14,518
the effects you're having
with the device, like less fuel,

68
00:03:14,542 --> 00:03:17,247
as well as the effects
of the actual tools you're using

69
00:03:17,271 --> 00:03:18,945
to get people to do things --

70
00:03:18,969 --> 00:03:20,540
public recognition?

71
00:03:20,564 --> 00:03:23,485
Now is that all -- intention, effect?

72
00:03:23,509 --> 00:03:26,643
Well, there are some technologies
which obviously combine both.

73
00:03:26,667 --> 00:03:29,454
Both good long-term and short-term effects

74
00:03:29,478 --> 00:03:32,287
and a positive intention
like Fred Stutzman's "Freedom,"

75
00:03:32,311 --> 00:03:34,518
where the whole point
of that application is --

76
00:03:34,542 --> 00:03:38,267
well, we're usually so bombarded
with constant requests by other people,

77
00:03:38,291 --> 00:03:39,447
with this device,

78
00:03:39,471 --> 00:03:42,951
you can shut off the Internet
connectivity of your PC of choice

79
00:03:42,975 --> 00:03:44,423
for a pre-set amount of time,

80
00:03:44,447 --> 00:03:46,418
to actually get some work done.

81
00:03:46,442 --> 00:03:49,593
And I think most of us will agree
that's something well-intended,

82
00:03:49,617 --> 00:03:51,837
and also has good consequences.

83
00:03:51,861 --> 00:03:53,507
In the words of Michel Foucault,

84
00:03:53,531 --> 00:03:55,471
it is a "technology of the self."

85
00:03:55,495 --> 00:03:58,332
It is a technology
that empowers the individual

86
00:03:58,356 --> 00:04:00,171
to determine its own life course,

87
00:04:00,195 --> 00:04:01,714
to shape itself.

88
00:04:02,150 --> 00:04:05,134
But the problem is,
as Foucault points out,

89
00:04:05,158 --> 00:04:06,943
that every technology of the self

90
00:04:06,967 --> 00:04:10,412
has a technology of domination
as its flip side.

91
00:04:10,436 --> 00:04:15,039
As you see in today's modern
liberal democracies,

92
00:04:15,063 --> 00:04:19,746
the society, the state,
not only allows us to determine our self,

93
00:04:19,770 --> 00:04:20,921
to shape our self,

94
00:04:20,945 --> 00:04:22,936
it also demands it of us.

95
00:04:22,960 --> 00:04:24,921
It demands that we optimize ourselves,

96
00:04:24,945 --> 00:04:26,785
that we control ourselves,

97
00:04:26,809 --> 00:04:29,520
that we self-manage continuously,

98
00:04:29,544 --> 00:04:33,437
because that's the only way
in which such a liberal society works.

99
00:04:33,461 --> 00:04:37,729
These technologies want us
to stay in the game

100
00:04:37,753 --> 00:04:40,526
that society has devised for us.

101
00:04:40,550 --> 00:04:42,837
They want us to fit in even better.

102
00:04:42,861 --> 00:04:45,439
They want us to optimize
ourselves to fit in.

103
00:04:46,368 --> 00:04:49,447
Now, I don't say that
is necessarily a bad thing;

104
00:04:50,033 --> 00:04:54,361
I just think that this example
points us to a general realization,

105
00:04:54,385 --> 00:04:58,188
and that is: no matter what technology
or design you look at,

106
00:04:58,212 --> 00:05:01,233
even something we consider
as well-intended

107
00:05:01,257 --> 00:05:04,223
and as good in its effects
as Stutzman's Freedom,

108
00:05:04,247 --> 00:05:06,954
comes with certain values embedded in it.

109
00:05:06,978 --> 00:05:08,914
And we can question these values.

110
00:05:08,938 --> 00:05:10,882
We can question: Is it a good thing

111
00:05:10,906 --> 00:05:14,390
that all of us continuously
self-optimize ourselves

112
00:05:14,414 --> 00:05:16,425
to fit better into that society?

113
00:05:16,449 --> 00:05:17,941
Or to give you another example:

114
00:05:17,965 --> 00:05:20,441
What about a piece
of persuasive technology

115
00:05:20,465 --> 00:05:23,656
that convinces Muslim women
to wear their headscarves?

116
00:05:23,680 --> 00:05:25,732
Is that a good or a bad technology

117
00:05:25,756 --> 00:05:28,319
in its intentions or in its effects?

118
00:05:28,343 --> 00:05:32,597
Well, that basically depends on
the kind of values you bring to bear

119
00:05:32,621 --> 00:05:34,858
to make these kinds of judgments.

120
00:05:34,882 --> 00:05:36,410
So that's a third question:

121
00:05:36,434 --> 00:05:37,962
What values do you use to judge?

122
00:05:38,588 --> 00:05:39,929
And speaking of values:

123
00:05:39,953 --> 00:05:43,309
I've noticed that in the discussion
about moral persuasion online

124
00:05:43,333 --> 00:05:44,970
and when I'm talking with people,

125
00:05:44,994 --> 00:05:47,661
more often than not,
there is a weird bias.

126
00:05:48,203 --> 00:05:51,099
And that bias is that we're asking:

127
00:05:51,123 --> 00:05:53,936
Is this or that "still" ethical?

128
00:05:53,960 --> 00:05:56,610
Is it "still" permissible?

129
00:05:56,634 --> 00:05:57,832
We're asking things like:

130
00:05:57,856 --> 00:06:00,045
Is this Oxfam donation form,

131
00:06:00,069 --> 00:06:03,117
where the regular monthly
donation is the preset default,

132
00:06:03,141 --> 00:06:05,220
and people, maybe without intending it,

133
00:06:05,244 --> 00:06:09,056
are encouraged or nudged
into giving a regular donation

134
00:06:09,080 --> 00:06:10,569
instead of a one-time donation,

135
00:06:10,593 --> 00:06:11,936
is that "still' permissible?

136
00:06:11,960 --> 00:06:13,323
Is it "still" ethical?

137
00:06:13,347 --> 00:06:14,826
We're fishing at the low end.

138
00:06:15,619 --> 00:06:18,093
But in fact, that question,
"Is it 'still' ethical?"

139
00:06:18,117 --> 00:06:19,898
is just one way of looking at ethics.

140
00:06:19,922 --> 00:06:24,814
Because if you look at the beginning
of ethics in Western culture,

141
00:06:24,838 --> 00:06:28,370
you see a very different idea
of what ethics also could be.

142
00:06:28,710 --> 00:06:32,707
For Aristotle, ethics
was not about the question,

143
00:06:32,731 --> 00:06:35,003
"Is that still good, or is it bad?"

144
00:06:35,027 --> 00:06:38,455
Ethics was about the question
of how to live life well.

145
00:06:38,956 --> 00:06:41,137
And he put that in the word "arête,"

146
00:06:41,161 --> 00:06:43,916
which we, from [Ancient Greek],
translate as "virtue."

147
00:06:43,940 --> 00:06:45,580
But really, it means "excellence."

148
00:06:45,604 --> 00:06:51,035
It means living up to your own
full potential as a human being.

149
00:06:51,677 --> 00:06:53,333
And that is an idea that, I think,

150
00:06:53,357 --> 00:06:56,054
Paul Richard Buchanan
put nicely in a recent essay,

151
00:06:56,078 --> 00:06:58,221
where he said,
"Products are vivid arguments

152
00:06:58,245 --> 00:07:00,368
about how we should live our lives."

153
00:07:00,826 --> 00:07:03,403
Our designs are not ethical or unethical

154
00:07:03,427 --> 00:07:08,017
in that they're using ethical
or unethical means of persuading us.

155
00:07:08,401 --> 00:07:09,971
They have a moral component

156
00:07:09,995 --> 00:07:14,222
just in the kind of vision
and the aspiration of the good life

157
00:07:14,246 --> 00:07:15,594
that they present to us.

158
00:07:16,181 --> 00:07:19,684
And if you look into the designed
environment around us

159
00:07:19,708 --> 00:07:20,880
with that kind of lens,

160
00:07:20,904 --> 00:07:23,357
asking, "What is the vision
of the good life

161
00:07:23,381 --> 00:07:26,119
that our products, our design,
present to us?",

162
00:07:26,143 --> 00:07:28,419
then you often get the shivers,

163
00:07:28,443 --> 00:07:30,771
because of how little
we expect of each other,

164
00:07:30,795 --> 00:07:34,685
of how little we actually
seem to expect of our life,

165
00:07:34,709 --> 00:07:36,743
and what the good life looks like.

166
00:07:37,850 --> 00:07:40,873
So that's a fourth question
I'd like to leave you with:

167
00:07:40,897 --> 00:07:45,259
What vision of the good life
do your designs convey?

168
00:07:45,989 --> 00:07:47,361
And speaking of design,

169
00:07:47,385 --> 00:07:51,575
you'll notice that I already
broadened the discussion,

170
00:07:51,599 --> 00:07:56,043
because it's not just persuasive
technology that we're talking about here,

171
00:07:56,067 --> 00:08:00,144
it's any piece of design
that we put out here in the world.

172
00:08:00,168 --> 00:08:01,568
I don't know whether you know

173
00:08:01,592 --> 00:08:05,147
the great communication researcher
Paul Watzlawick who, back in the '60s,

174
00:08:05,171 --> 00:08:07,682
made the argument
that we cannot not communicate.

175
00:08:07,706 --> 00:08:10,307
Even if we choose to be silent,
we chose to be silent,

176
00:08:10,331 --> 00:08:13,287
and we're communicating something
by choosing to be silent.

177
00:08:13,311 --> 00:08:16,046
And in the same way
that we cannot not communicate,

178
00:08:16,070 --> 00:08:17,601
we cannot not persuade:

179
00:08:17,625 --> 00:08:19,636
whatever we do or refrain from doing,

180
00:08:19,660 --> 00:08:24,025
whatever we put out there
as a piece of design, into the world,

181
00:08:24,049 --> 00:08:26,096
has a persuasive component.

182
00:08:26,120 --> 00:08:27,993
It tries to affect people.

183
00:08:28,017 --> 00:08:31,764
It puts a certain vision of the good life
out there in front of us,

184
00:08:31,788 --> 00:08:33,413
which is what Peter-Paul Verbeek,

185
00:08:33,437 --> 00:08:36,153
the Dutch philosopher of technology, says.

186
00:08:36,177 --> 00:08:40,125
No matter whether we as designers
intend it or not,

187
00:08:40,149 --> 00:08:42,291
we materialize morality.

188
00:08:42,315 --> 00:08:45,118
We make certain things
harder and easier to do.

189
00:08:45,142 --> 00:08:47,353
We organize the existence of people.

190
00:08:47,377 --> 00:08:48,528
We put a certain vision

191
00:08:48,552 --> 00:08:51,956
of what good or bad or normal or usual is

192
00:08:51,980 --> 00:08:53,131
in front of people,

193
00:08:53,155 --> 00:08:55,555
by everything we put
out there in the world.

194
00:08:55,987 --> 00:08:59,073
Even something as innocuous
as a set of school chairs

195
00:08:59,097 --> 00:09:01,144
is a persuasive technology,

196
00:09:01,168 --> 00:09:05,858
because it presents and materializes
a certain vision of the good life --

197
00:09:05,882 --> 00:09:08,739
a good life in which teaching
and learning and listening

198
00:09:08,763 --> 00:09:11,862
is about one person teaching,
the others listening;

199
00:09:11,886 --> 00:09:15,939
in which it is about
learning-is-done-while-sitting;

200
00:09:15,963 --> 00:09:17,558
in which you learn for yourself;

201
00:09:17,582 --> 00:09:20,002
in which you're not supposed
to change these rules,

202
00:09:20,026 --> 00:09:22,473
because the chairs
are fixed to the ground.

203
00:09:23,628 --> 00:09:26,539
And even something as innocuous
as a single-design chair,

204
00:09:26,563 --> 00:09:28,135
like this one by Arne Jacobsen,

205
00:09:28,159 --> 00:09:29,935
is a persuasive technology,

206
00:09:29,959 --> 00:09:33,002
because, again, it communicates
an idea of the good life:

207
00:09:33,475 --> 00:09:38,400
a good life -- a life that you,
as a designer, consent to by saying,

208
00:09:38,424 --> 00:09:41,931
"In a good life, goods are produced
as sustainably or unsustainably

209
00:09:41,955 --> 00:09:43,566
as this chair.

210
00:09:43,590 --> 00:09:45,567
Workers are treated as well or as badly

211
00:09:45,591 --> 00:09:48,163
as the workers were treated
that built that chair."

212
00:09:48,502 --> 00:09:50,803
The good life is a life
where design is important

213
00:09:50,827 --> 00:09:53,748
because somebody obviously took
the time and spent the money

214
00:09:53,772 --> 00:09:55,556
for that kind of well-designed chair;

215
00:09:55,580 --> 00:09:56,984
where tradition is important,

216
00:09:57,008 --> 00:10:00,174
because this is a traditional classic
and someone cared about this;

217
00:10:00,198 --> 00:10:02,888
and where there is something
as conspicuous consumption,

218
00:10:02,912 --> 00:10:05,868
where it is OK and normal to spend
a humongous amount of money

219
00:10:05,892 --> 00:10:07,043
on such a chair,

220
00:10:07,067 --> 00:10:09,640
to signal to other people
what your social status is.

221
00:10:09,664 --> 00:10:12,981
So these are the kinds of layers,
the kinds of questions

222
00:10:13,005 --> 00:10:14,975
I wanted to lead you through today;

223
00:10:14,999 --> 00:10:18,033
the question of: What are the intentions
that you bring to bear

224
00:10:18,057 --> 00:10:19,617
when you're designing something?

225
00:10:19,641 --> 00:10:22,893
What are the effects, intended
and unintended, that you're having?

226
00:10:22,917 --> 00:10:25,718
What are the values
you're using to judge those?

227
00:10:25,742 --> 00:10:27,715
What are the virtues, the aspirations

228
00:10:27,739 --> 00:10:29,767
that you're actually expressing in that?

229
00:10:30,140 --> 00:10:31,997
And how does that apply,

230
00:10:32,021 --> 00:10:34,007
not just to persuasive technology,

231
00:10:34,031 --> 00:10:36,079
but to everything you design?

232
00:10:36,652 --> 00:10:37,943
Do we stop there?

233
00:10:38,555 --> 00:10:39,722
I don't think so.

234
00:10:40,031 --> 00:10:44,469
I think that all of these things
are eventually informed

235
00:10:44,493 --> 00:10:45,916
by the core of all of this,

236
00:10:45,940 --> 00:10:49,031
and this is nothing but life itself.

237
00:10:49,334 --> 00:10:52,051
Why, when the question
of what the good life is

238
00:10:52,075 --> 00:10:54,414
informs everything that we design,

239
00:10:54,438 --> 00:10:57,232
should we stop at design
and not ask ourselves:

240
00:10:57,256 --> 00:10:59,246
How does it apply to our own life?

241
00:10:59,621 --> 00:11:02,333
"Why should the lamp
or the house be an art object,

242
00:11:02,357 --> 00:11:03,533
but not our life?"

243
00:11:03,557 --> 00:11:05,040
as Michel Foucault puts it.

244
00:11:05,436 --> 00:11:09,047
Just to give you a practical
example of Buster Benson.

245
00:11:09,071 --> 00:11:11,329
This is Buster setting up
a pull-up machine

246
00:11:11,353 --> 00:11:13,965
at the office of his new
start-up, Habit Labs,

247
00:11:13,989 --> 00:11:17,204
where they're trying to build
other applications like "Health Month"

248
00:11:17,228 --> 00:11:18,386
for people.

249
00:11:18,410 --> 00:11:20,372
And why is he building a thing like this?

250
00:11:20,396 --> 00:11:22,429
Well, here is the set of axioms

251
00:11:22,453 --> 00:11:25,851
that Habit Labs, Buster's start-up,
put up for themselves

252
00:11:25,875 --> 00:11:28,580
on how they wanted to work
together as a team

253
00:11:28,604 --> 00:11:30,633
when they're building
these applications --

254
00:11:30,657 --> 00:11:32,846
a set of moral principles
they set themselves

255
00:11:32,870 --> 00:11:34,231
for working together --

256
00:11:34,255 --> 00:11:35,493
one of them being,

257
00:11:35,517 --> 00:11:38,604
"We take care of our own health
and manage our own burnout."

258
00:11:38,961 --> 00:11:42,461
Because ultimately,
how can you ask yourselves

259
00:11:42,485 --> 00:11:46,415
and how can you find an answer
on what vision of the good life

260
00:11:46,439 --> 00:11:49,608
you want to convey and create
with your designs

261
00:11:49,632 --> 00:11:51,362
without asking the question:

262
00:11:51,386 --> 00:11:55,218
What vision of the good life
do you yourself want to live?

263
00:11:55,758 --> 00:11:56,932
And with that,

264
00:11:57,685 --> 00:11:59,097
I thank you.

265
00:11:59,121 --> 00:12:03,277
(Applause)