WEBVTT

00:00:01.167 --> 00:00:02.500
Hi there, everyone.

00:00:03.722 --> 00:00:07.389
I would like to start
by asking you a simple question.

00:00:07.452 --> 00:00:08.484
And that is,

00:00:08.531 --> 00:00:12.536
who of you wants to build a product
that is as captivating and engaging

00:00:12.561 --> 00:00:14.494
as, say, Facebook or Twitter?

00:00:14.641 --> 00:00:17.307
If you think so, please raise your hand.

00:00:17.513 --> 00:00:20.339
Something that's as captivating
and engaging as Twitter.

00:00:20.355 --> 00:00:22.088
Please keep your hands up.

00:00:22.625 --> 00:00:24.878
Now, those of you
who have kept your hands up,

00:00:24.919 --> 00:00:26.902
please keep your hands up if you feel

00:00:26.950 --> 00:00:29.997
that you're spending more time
than you should spend

00:00:30.030 --> 00:00:32.910
on sites like Facebook or Twitter,

00:00:32.934 --> 00:00:34.997
time that would be better spent

00:00:35.038 --> 00:00:38.624
with friends or spouses
or doing things that you actually love.

00:00:39.720 --> 00:00:42.085
Okay. Those who still have
their arms up,

00:00:42.133 --> 00:00:44.200
please discuss after the break.

00:00:44.220 --> 00:00:46.077
(Laughter)

00:00:46.125 --> 00:00:48.066
So, why am I asking this question?

00:00:48.474 --> 00:00:49.529
I am asking it,

00:00:49.591 --> 00:00:52.442
because we are today talking
about moral persuasion:

00:00:52.501 --> 00:00:56.483
What is moral and immoral
in trying to change people's behaviors

00:00:56.507 --> 00:00:58.960
by using technology and using design?

00:00:58.984 --> 00:01:00.816
And I don't know what you expect,

00:01:00.840 --> 00:01:02.793
but when I was thinking about that issue,

00:01:02.817 --> 00:01:06.856
I early on realized what I'm not able
to give you are answers.

00:01:07.443 --> 00:01:10.214
I'm not able to tell you
what is moral or immoral,

00:01:10.238 --> 00:01:12.785
because we're living
in a pluralist society.

00:01:12.809 --> 00:01:17.051
My values can be radically
different from your values,

00:01:17.075 --> 00:01:20.252
which means that what I consider
moral or immoral based on that

00:01:20.276 --> 00:01:23.888
might not necessarily be
what you consider moral or immoral.

00:01:24.269 --> 00:01:27.483
But I also realized
there is one thing that I could give you,

00:01:27.507 --> 00:01:30.040
and that is what this guy
behind me gave the world...

00:01:30.064 --> 00:01:31.214
Socrates.

00:01:31.238 --> 00:01:32.633
It is questions.

00:01:32.657 --> 00:01:35.290
What I can do and what
I would like to do with you

00:01:35.314 --> 00:01:37.259
is give you, like that initial question,

00:01:37.283 --> 00:01:41.914
a set of questions
to figure out for yourselves,

00:01:42.017 --> 00:01:45.658
layer by layer, like peeling an onion,

00:01:45.682 --> 00:01:50.702
getting at the core of what you believe
is moral or immoral persuasion.

00:01:51.099 --> 00:01:54.287
And I'd like to do that
with a couple of examples

00:01:54.446 --> 00:01:57.597
as was said, a couple of examples
of technologies

00:01:57.664 --> 00:02:02.644
where people have used game elements
to get people to do things.

00:02:03.561 --> 00:02:06.545
So, here's the first example
leading us to our first question.

00:02:06.585 --> 00:02:09.118
one of my favorite examples
of gamification,

00:02:09.143 --> 00:02:10.538
Buster Benson's health month.

00:02:10.568 --> 00:02:14.243
It's a simple application
where you set yourself health rules

00:02:14.942 --> 00:02:15.942
for one month.

00:02:16.188 --> 00:02:18.767
Rules like, I want to exercise
six times a week.

00:02:18.823 --> 00:02:20.656
Or, I don't want to drink any alcohol.

00:02:20.704 --> 00:02:23.767
And every morning you get
an email, asking you,

00:02:23.853 --> 00:02:25.583
Did you stick to your rules or not?

00:02:25.607 --> 00:02:27.894
And you say yes or no
to the different questions.

00:02:27.927 --> 00:02:30.553
And then, on the platform,
you can see how well you did,

00:02:30.958 --> 00:02:33.625
you can earn points and badges for that,

00:02:33.665 --> 00:02:36.058
That information is shared
with your peers,

00:02:36.108 --> 00:02:38.990
and if you don't stick to a rule,
you loose a health point,

00:02:39.015 --> 00:02:41.140
but you friends ccan chip in
and heal you.

00:02:41.879 --> 00:02:45.442
Beautiful example, and I believe
most of you will agree with me

00:02:45.760 --> 00:02:48.490
that it kind of sounds
like ethical persuasion, right?

00:02:48.561 --> 00:02:50.910
It sounds like something
that is good to do.

00:02:50.948 --> 00:02:52.482
Here's another example.

00:02:52.768 --> 00:02:55.513
Very similar in the kind of
thinking behind it,

00:02:55.569 --> 00:02:57.505
very different example - Lockers.

00:02:57.593 --> 00:03:01.069
It's a social platform
where people set up profiles

00:03:01.180 --> 00:03:04.418
and on them, the main thing they do
is they put up product pictures

00:03:04.498 --> 00:03:06.565
pictures of products they like,

00:03:06.617 --> 00:03:08.831
and link their profiles with their friends

00:03:08.863 --> 00:03:12.339
and every time I click
on one of those products on your page,

00:03:12.371 --> 00:03:13.474
you get points,

00:03:13.487 --> 00:03:16.783
and every time you click
on a product page on my page,

00:03:17.125 --> 00:03:18.125
I get points,

00:03:18.157 --> 00:03:20.791
and if you actually buy something
I get a lot of points.

00:03:20.838 --> 00:03:23.490
and both of us can then
exchange these points

00:03:23.831 --> 00:03:26.165
into percentages of these products.

00:03:26.538 --> 00:03:28.101
Now, I don't know how you feel,

00:03:28.173 --> 00:03:30.839
but personally I think
that Health Month

00:03:30.895 --> 00:03:33.628
is something that feels to me very benign

00:03:33.704 --> 00:03:37.005
and a good piece, a moral piece
of technology,

00:03:37.046 --> 00:03:40.632
whereas there's something about Locker
that makes me feel a little queezy.

00:03:41.514 --> 00:03:44.918
Thinking about what is it exactly
that makes me feel queezy here,

00:03:44.943 --> 00:03:46.450
in this case, versus the other,

00:03:46.490 --> 00:03:48.640
was a very simple answer,
and that is, well,

00:03:48.657 --> 00:03:50.505
the intention behind it, right?

00:03:51.355 --> 00:03:54.997
In one case, the intention is,
"That site wants me to be healthier,

00:03:55.022 --> 00:03:57.418
and the other site wants me to shop more."

00:03:57.683 --> 00:04:00.723
So it's at first a very simple,
very obvious question

00:04:00.747 --> 00:04:01.943
I would like to give you:

00:04:01.967 --> 00:04:04.654
What are your intentions
if you are designing something?

00:04:05.008 --> 00:04:08.381
And obviously, intentions
are not the only thing,

00:04:08.705 --> 00:04:12.140
so here is another example
for one of these applications.

00:04:12.307 --> 00:04:15.394
There are a couple of these kinds
of Eco dashboards right now...

00:04:15.418 --> 00:04:16.878
Dashboards built into cars...

00:04:16.902 --> 00:04:19.733
Which try to motivate you
to drive more fuel-efficiently.

00:04:19.757 --> 00:04:21.531
This here is Nissan's MyLeaf,

00:04:21.555 --> 00:04:25.518
where your driving behavior
is compared with the driving behavior

00:04:25.543 --> 00:04:26.694
of other people,

00:04:26.718 --> 00:04:29.995
so you can compete for who drives a route
the most fuel-efficiently.

00:04:30.019 --> 00:04:32.496
And these things are
very effective, it turns out...

00:04:32.520 --> 00:04:36.459
So effective that they motivate people
to engage in unsafe driving behaviors,

00:04:36.483 --> 00:04:38.444
like not stopping at a red light,

00:04:38.469 --> 00:04:41.184
because that way you have
to stop and restart the engine,

00:04:41.208 --> 00:04:43.931
and that would use quite
some fuel, wouldn't it?

00:04:44.978 --> 00:04:49.387
So despite this being
a very well-intended application,

00:04:49.411 --> 00:04:51.786
obviously there was a side effect of that.

00:04:51.810 --> 00:04:54.358
Here's another example
for one of these side effects.

00:04:54.382 --> 00:04:59.166
Commendable: a site that allows parents
to give their kids little badges

00:04:59.190 --> 00:05:01.848
for doing the things
that parents want their kids to do,

00:05:01.872 --> 00:05:03.188
like tying their shoes.

00:05:03.212 --> 00:05:05.456
And at first that sounds very nice,

00:05:05.480 --> 00:05:07.630
very benign, well-intended.

00:05:07.654 --> 00:05:11.923
But it turns out, if you look into
research on people's mindset,

00:05:11.948 --> 00:05:13.435
caring about outcomes,

00:05:13.459 --> 00:05:15.232
caring about public recognition,

00:05:15.256 --> 00:05:19.117
caring about these kinds
of public tokens of recognition

00:05:19.141 --> 00:05:21.135
is not necessarily very helpful

00:05:21.159 --> 00:05:23.466
for your long-term
psychological well-being.

00:05:23.490 --> 00:05:26.166
It's better if you care
about learning something.

00:05:26.190 --> 00:05:28.095
It's better when you care about yourself

00:05:28.119 --> 00:05:30.693
than how you appear
in front of other people.

00:05:31.161 --> 00:05:36.202
So that kind of motivational tool
that is used actually, in and of itself,

00:05:36.226 --> 00:05:38.134
has a long-term side effect,

00:05:38.158 --> 00:05:39.968
in that every time we use a technology

00:05:39.992 --> 00:05:43.166
that uses something
like public recognition or status,

00:05:43.190 --> 00:05:45.566
we're actually positively endorsing this

00:05:45.590 --> 00:05:49.000
as a good and normal thing
to care about...

00:05:49.024 --> 00:05:51.888
That way, possibly having
a detrimental effect

00:05:51.912 --> 00:05:55.767
on the long-term psychological
well-being of ourselves as a culture.

00:05:55.791 --> 00:05:58.435
So that's a second, very obvious question:

00:05:58.459 --> 00:06:00.770
What are the effects
of what you're doing...

00:06:00.794 --> 00:06:04.918
The effects you're having
with the device, like less fuel,

00:06:04.942 --> 00:06:07.647
as well as the effects
of the actual tools you're using

00:06:07.671 --> 00:06:09.345
to get people to do things...

00:06:09.369 --> 00:06:10.940
Public recognition?

00:06:11.264 --> 00:06:14.185
Now is that all... intention, effect?

00:06:14.209 --> 00:06:17.343
Well, there are some technologies
which obviously combine both.

00:06:17.367 --> 00:06:20.154
Both good long-term and short-term effects

00:06:20.178 --> 00:06:24.409
and a positive intention
like Fred Stutzman's "Freedom,"

00:06:24.611 --> 00:06:26.818
where the whole point
of that application is...

00:06:26.842 --> 00:06:30.567
Well, we're usually so bombarded
with constant requests by other people,

00:06:30.591 --> 00:06:31.747
with this device,

00:06:31.771 --> 00:06:35.251
you can shut off the Internet
connectivity of your PC of choice

00:06:35.275 --> 00:06:36.723
for a pre-set amount of time,

00:06:36.747 --> 00:06:38.718
to actually get some work done.

00:06:39.742 --> 00:06:42.893
And I think most of us will agree
that's something well-intended,

00:06:42.917 --> 00:06:45.137
and also has good consequences.

00:06:45.161 --> 00:06:46.807
In the words of Michel Foucault,

00:06:46.831 --> 00:06:48.771
it is a "technology of the self."

00:06:48.795 --> 00:06:51.632
It is a technology
that empowers the individual

00:06:51.656 --> 00:06:53.471
to determine its own life course,

00:06:53.495 --> 00:06:55.014
to shape itself.

00:06:55.850 --> 00:06:59.094
But the problem is,
as Foucault points out,

00:06:59.358 --> 00:07:01.143
that every technology of the self

00:07:01.167 --> 00:07:04.612
has a technology of domination
as its flip side.

00:07:04.636 --> 00:07:09.239
As you see in today's modern
liberal democracies,

00:07:09.263 --> 00:07:13.946
the society, the state,
not only allows us to determine our self,

00:07:13.970 --> 00:07:15.121
to shape our self,

00:07:15.145 --> 00:07:17.136
it also demands it of us.

00:07:17.160 --> 00:07:19.121
It demands that we optimize ourselves,

00:07:19.145 --> 00:07:20.985
that we control ourselves,

00:07:21.009 --> 00:07:23.720
that we self-manage continuously,

00:07:23.744 --> 00:07:27.347
because that's the only way
in which such a liberal society works.

00:07:27.434 --> 00:07:28.450
In a way,

00:07:28.585 --> 00:07:32.069
the kind of devices like
Fred Stutzman's "Freedom,"

00:07:32.125 --> 00:07:35.593
or Buster Benson's Helth Month,
are technologies of domination,

00:07:35.601 --> 00:07:37.334
because they want us to be

00:07:37.513 --> 00:07:40.855
(Robotic voice) fitter, happier,
more productive,

00:07:40.950 --> 00:07:43.902
comfortable, not drinking too much,

00:07:44.069 --> 00:07:47.553
regular exercise at the gym
three days a week,

00:07:47.688 --> 00:07:51.521
gettin on better with your
associate employee contemporaries.

00:07:51.546 --> 00:07:53.434
At ease.
Eating well.

00:07:53.530 --> 00:07:56.878
No more microwave dinners
and saturated fats.

00:07:56.966 --> 00:08:00.148
A patient, better driver,
a safer car,

00:08:00.212 --> 00:08:02.188
[unclear]

00:08:02.228 --> 00:08:04.807
sleeping well, no bad dreams.

00:08:06.261 --> 00:08:10.529
SD: These technologies want us
to stay in the game

00:08:10.553 --> 00:08:13.326
that society has devised for us.

00:08:13.350 --> 00:08:15.637
They want us to fit in even better.

00:08:15.661 --> 00:08:18.239
They want us to optimize
ourselves to fit in.

00:08:19.168 --> 00:08:22.247
Now, I don't say that
is necessarily a bad thing;

00:08:22.833 --> 00:08:27.161
I just think that this example
points us to a general realization,

00:08:27.185 --> 00:08:30.988
and that is: no matter what technology
or design you look at,

00:08:31.012 --> 00:08:34.033
even something we consider
as well-intended

00:08:35.857 --> 00:08:38.994
and as good in its effects
as Stutzman's Freedom,

00:08:39.246 --> 00:08:41.953
comes with certain values embedded in it.

00:08:41.977 --> 00:08:43.914
And we can question these values.

00:08:43.938 --> 00:08:45.882
We can question: Is it a good thing

00:08:45.906 --> 00:08:49.390
that all of us continuously
self-optimize ourselves

00:08:49.414 --> 00:08:51.425
to fit better into that society?

00:08:51.449 --> 00:08:52.941
Or to give you another example:

00:08:52.976 --> 00:08:56.031
the one at the initial presentation,

00:08:56.065 --> 00:08:58.541
What about a piece
of persuasive technology

00:08:58.565 --> 00:09:01.756
that convinces Muslim women
to wear their headscarves?

00:09:01.780 --> 00:09:03.832
Is that a good or a bad technology

00:09:03.856 --> 00:09:06.419
in its intentions or in its effects?

00:09:07.143 --> 00:09:11.397
Well, that basically depends on
the kind of values you bring to bear

00:09:11.421 --> 00:09:13.658
to make these kinds of judgments.

00:09:13.682 --> 00:09:15.210
So that's a third question:

00:09:15.234 --> 00:09:16.762
What values do you use to judge?

00:09:17.388 --> 00:09:18.729
And speaking of values:

00:09:18.753 --> 00:09:22.109
I've noticed that in the discussion
about moral persuasion online

00:09:22.133 --> 00:09:23.770
and when I'm talking with people,

00:09:24.394 --> 00:09:27.061
more often than not,
there is a weird bias.

00:09:27.603 --> 00:09:30.499
And that bias is that we're asking:

00:09:30.523 --> 00:09:33.336
Is this or that "still" ethical?

00:09:33.360 --> 00:09:36.010
Is it "still" permissible?

00:09:37.234 --> 00:09:38.432
We're asking things like:

00:09:38.456 --> 00:09:40.645
Is this Oxfam donation form,

00:09:40.669 --> 00:09:43.717
where the regular monthly
donation is the preset default,

00:09:43.741 --> 00:09:45.820
and people, maybe without intending it,

00:09:45.844 --> 00:09:50.455
are encouraged or nudged
into giving a regular donation

00:09:50.480 --> 00:09:51.969
instead of a one-time donation,

00:09:51.993 --> 00:09:53.336
is that "still' permissible?

00:09:53.360 --> 00:09:54.723
Is it "still" ethical?

00:09:54.747 --> 00:09:56.226
We're fishing at the low end.

00:09:56.819 --> 00:09:59.293
But in fact, that question,
"Is it 'still' ethical?"

00:09:59.317 --> 00:10:01.098
is just one way of looking at ethics.

00:10:01.122 --> 00:10:06.014
Because if you look at the beginning
of ethics in Western culture,

00:10:06.038 --> 00:10:09.570
you see a very different idea
of what ethics also could be.

00:10:09.910 --> 00:10:13.907
For Aristotle, ethics
was not about the question,

00:10:13.931 --> 00:10:16.203
"Is that still good, or is it bad?"

00:10:16.227 --> 00:10:19.655
Ethics was about the question
of how to live life well.

00:10:20.156 --> 00:10:22.337
And he put that in the word "arête,"

00:10:22.361 --> 00:10:25.116
which we, from [Ancient Greek],
translate as "virtue."

00:10:25.140 --> 00:10:26.780
But really, it means "excellence."

00:10:26.804 --> 00:10:32.235
It means living up to your own
full potential as a human being.

00:10:33.377 --> 00:10:35.033
And that is an idea that, I think,

00:10:35.057 --> 00:10:38.353
Paul Richard Buchanan
put nicely in a recent essay,

00:10:38.378 --> 00:10:40.521
where he said,
"Products are vivid arguments

00:10:40.545 --> 00:10:42.668
about how we should live our lives."

00:10:43.126 --> 00:10:45.703
Our designs are not ethical or unethical

00:10:45.727 --> 00:10:50.317
in that they're using ethical
or unethical means of persuading us.

00:10:50.701 --> 00:10:52.271
They have a moral component

00:10:52.295 --> 00:10:56.522
just in the kind of vision
and the aspiration of the good life

00:10:56.546 --> 00:10:57.894
that they present to us.

00:10:58.381 --> 00:11:01.884
And if you look into the designed
environment around us

00:11:01.908 --> 00:11:03.080
with that kind of lens,

00:11:03.104 --> 00:11:05.557
asking, "What is the vision
of the good life

00:11:05.581 --> 00:11:08.319
that our products, our design,
present to us?",

00:11:08.343 --> 00:11:10.619
then you often get the shivers,

00:11:10.643 --> 00:11:12.971
because of how little
we expect of each other,

00:11:12.995 --> 00:11:16.885
of how little we actually
seem to expect of our life,

00:11:16.909 --> 00:11:18.943
and what the good life looks like.

00:11:20.050 --> 00:11:23.073
So that's a fourth question
I'd like to leave you with:

00:11:23.397 --> 00:11:27.759
What vision of the good life
do your designs convey?

00:11:28.489 --> 00:11:29.861
And speaking of design,

00:11:29.885 --> 00:11:34.075
you'll notice that I already
broadened the discussion,

00:11:34.099 --> 00:11:38.543
because it's not just persuasive
technology that we're talking about here,

00:11:38.567 --> 00:11:42.644
it's any piece of design
that we put out here in the world.

00:11:42.668 --> 00:11:44.068
I don't know whether you know

00:11:44.092 --> 00:11:47.647
the great communication researcher
Paul Watzlawick who, back in the '60s,

00:11:47.671 --> 00:11:50.182
made the argument
that we cannot not communicate.

00:11:50.206 --> 00:11:52.807
Even if we choose to be silent,
we chose to be silent,

00:11:52.831 --> 00:11:55.787
and we're communicating something
by choosing to be silent.

00:11:55.811 --> 00:11:58.546
And in the same way
that we cannot not communicate,

00:11:58.570 --> 00:12:00.101
we cannot not persuade:

00:12:00.125 --> 00:12:02.136
whatever we do or refrain from doing,

00:12:02.160 --> 00:12:06.525
whatever we put out there
as a piece of design, into the world,

00:12:06.549 --> 00:12:08.596
has a persuasive component.

00:12:08.620 --> 00:12:10.493
It tries to affect people.

00:12:10.517 --> 00:12:14.264
It puts a certain vision of the good life
out there in front of us,

00:12:14.888 --> 00:12:16.513
which is what Peter-Paul Verbeek,

00:12:16.537 --> 00:12:19.253
the Dutch philosopher of technology, says.

00:12:20.277 --> 00:12:24.225
No matter whether we as designers
intend it or not,

00:12:24.249 --> 00:12:26.391
we materialize morality.

00:12:26.415 --> 00:12:29.218
We make certain things
harder and easier to do.

00:12:29.242 --> 00:12:31.453
We organize the existence of people.

00:12:31.477 --> 00:12:32.628
We put a certain vision

00:12:32.652 --> 00:12:36.056
of what good or bad or normal or usual is

00:12:36.080 --> 00:12:37.231
in front of people,

00:12:37.255 --> 00:12:39.655
by everything we put
out there in the world.

00:12:40.087 --> 00:12:43.173
Even something as innocuous
as a set of school chairs

00:12:43.203 --> 00:12:47.409
as a set of chairs that you're sitting on
and I'm standing in front of,

00:12:48.297 --> 00:12:50.344
is a persuasive technology,

00:12:50.368 --> 00:12:55.058
because it presents and materializes
a certain vision of the good life...

00:12:55.082 --> 00:12:57.939
A good life in which teaching
and learning and listening

00:12:57.963 --> 00:13:01.062
is about one person teaching,
the others listening;

00:13:01.086 --> 00:13:05.139
in which it is about
learning-is-done-while-sitting;

00:13:05.163 --> 00:13:06.758
in which you learn for yourself;

00:13:06.782 --> 00:13:09.202
in which you're not supposed
to change these rules,

00:13:09.226 --> 00:13:11.673
because the chairs
are fixed to the ground.

00:13:12.828 --> 00:13:15.739
And even something as innocuous
as a single-design chair,

00:13:15.763 --> 00:13:17.335
like this one by Arne Jacobsen,

00:13:17.359 --> 00:13:19.135
is a persuasive technology,

00:13:19.159 --> 00:13:22.202
because, again, it communicates
an idea of the good life:

00:13:22.675 --> 00:13:28.087
a good life... a life that you,
as a designer, consent to by saying,

00:13:28.124 --> 00:13:31.631
"In a good life, goods are produced
as sustainably or unsustainably

00:13:31.655 --> 00:13:33.266
as this chair.

00:13:33.290 --> 00:13:35.267
Workers are treated as well or as badly

00:13:35.291 --> 00:13:37.863
as the workers were treated
that built that chair."

00:13:38.202 --> 00:13:40.503
The good life is a life
where design is important

00:13:40.527 --> 00:13:43.448
because somebody obviously took
the time and spent the money

00:13:43.472 --> 00:13:45.256
for that kind of well-designed chair;

00:13:45.280 --> 00:13:46.684
where tradition is important,

00:13:46.708 --> 00:13:49.874
because this is a traditional classic
and someone cared about this;

00:13:49.898 --> 00:13:52.588
and where there is something
as conspicuous consumption,

00:13:52.612 --> 00:13:55.568
where it is OK and normal to spend
a humongous amount of money

00:13:55.592 --> 00:13:57.642
on such a chair,

00:13:57.667 --> 00:14:00.240
to signal to other people
what your social status is.

00:14:02.164 --> 00:14:05.481
So these are the kinds of layers,
the kinds of questions

00:14:05.505 --> 00:14:07.475
I wanted to lead you through today;

00:14:07.499 --> 00:14:10.533
the question of: What are the intentions
that you bring to bear

00:14:10.557 --> 00:14:12.117
when you're designing something?

00:14:12.141 --> 00:14:15.393
What are the effects, intended
and unintended, that you're having?

00:14:15.417 --> 00:14:18.218
What are the values
you're using to judge those?

00:14:18.242 --> 00:14:20.215
What are the virtues, the aspirations

00:14:20.239 --> 00:14:22.267
that you're actually expressing in that?

00:14:22.640 --> 00:14:24.497
And how does that apply,

00:14:24.521 --> 00:14:26.507
not just to persuasive technology,

00:14:26.531 --> 00:14:28.579
but to everything you design?

00:14:29.452 --> 00:14:30.743
Do we stop there?

00:14:31.355 --> 00:14:32.522
I don't think so.

00:14:32.831 --> 00:14:37.269
I think that all of these things
are eventually informed

00:14:37.293 --> 00:14:38.716
by the core of all of this,

00:14:38.740 --> 00:14:41.831
and this is nothing but life itself.

00:14:42.134 --> 00:14:44.851
Why, when the question
of what the good life is

00:14:44.875 --> 00:14:47.214
informs everything that we design,

00:14:47.238 --> 00:14:50.032
should we stop at design
and not ask ourselves:

00:14:50.056 --> 00:14:52.046
How does it apply to our own life?

00:14:52.421 --> 00:14:55.133
"Why should the lamp
or the house be an art object,

00:14:55.157 --> 00:14:56.333
but not our life?"

00:14:56.357 --> 00:14:57.840
as Michel Foucault puts it.

00:14:58.236 --> 00:15:01.764
Just to give you a practical
example of Buster Benson.

00:15:01.789 --> 00:15:03.765
whom I mentioned at the beginning.

00:15:03.871 --> 00:15:06.728
This is Buster setting
up a pull-up machine

00:15:06.753 --> 00:15:09.365
at the office of his new
start-up, Habit Labs,

00:15:09.389 --> 00:15:12.604
where they're trying to build
other applications like "Health Month"

00:15:12.628 --> 00:15:13.786
for people.

00:15:13.810 --> 00:15:15.772
And why is he building a thing like this?

00:15:15.796 --> 00:15:17.829
Well, here is the set of axioms

00:15:17.853 --> 00:15:22.897
that Habit Labs, Buster's start-up,
put up for themselves

00:15:22.975 --> 00:15:25.680
on how they wanted to work
together as a team

00:15:25.704 --> 00:15:27.733
when they're building
these applications...

00:15:27.757 --> 00:15:29.946
A set of moral principles
they set themselves

00:15:29.970 --> 00:15:31.331
for working together...

00:15:31.355 --> 00:15:32.593
One of them being,

00:15:32.617 --> 00:15:35.704
"We take care of our own health
and manage our own burnout."

00:15:36.061 --> 00:15:40.901
Because ultimately,
how can you ask yourselves

00:15:40.985 --> 00:15:44.915
and how can you find an answer
on what vision of the good life

00:15:44.939 --> 00:15:48.108
you want to convey and create
with your designs

00:15:48.132 --> 00:15:49.862
without asking the question:

00:15:49.886 --> 00:15:53.718
What vision of the good life
do you yourself want to live?

00:15:53.885 --> 00:15:55.059
And with that,

00:15:55.827 --> 00:15:57.239
I thank you.

00:15:57.494 --> 00:16:01.650
(Applause)