Time is what we want most, but what we use
worst. --William Penn
Is Technology Amplifying Human Potential, or Amusing Ourselves to Death?
--by Tristan
Harris, syndicated from tristanharris.com,
Jun 17, 2015
When
I was about five years old, my mom gave me a Macintosh LC II and I was hooked–
not to Facebook or the Internet, they didn’t exist yet, but to what it enabled a
five year old kid to do that I could never do before.
Like
the brilliant technical visionaries of the 70’s and 80’s at Xerox PARC like Doug
Engelbart, Ted Nelson, Alan Kay at Xerox PARC or Steve Jobs, I optimistically
believed computers could be “bicycles for our minds”
and amplify human potential.
And
they did empower us.
But
today, in the year 2015, “empowerment” rarely feels like my day to day
experience with technology. Instead I feel constantly lured into distractions. I
get sucked endlessly into email, distracting websites. I get bulldozed by
interruptive text messages, back and forth scheduling, or find myself scrolling
a website in a trance at 1am.
I
feel like I’m caught in a whirlpool of “Amusing
Ourselves to Death,” as Neil Postman
predicted 30 years ago, where he contrasts George Orwell’s vision for the
future (Big Brother) with Aldous Huxley’s vision in Brave New World in which
people “come to adore the technologies that would undo their capacities to
think.”
In
Postman’s own words:
What
Orwell feared were those who would ban books.
What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.
What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one.
Orwell
feared those who would deprive us of information.
Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism.
Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism.
Orwell
feared that the truth would be concealed from us.
Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance.
Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance.
Orwell
feared we would become a captive culture.
Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture ….
Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture ….
As
Huxley remarked … [they] “failed
to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions.”
–
Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves
to Death (1982)
Scary
how true it feels today, right?
What
Huxley is really concerned about, are the things that overwhelmingly seduce our
psychological instincts. Not that we should vilify them, but that we should
notice how powerful they are and how they might get abused.
Just
like we have built-in gustatory
instincts for salt, sugar and fat
that are actually incredibly useful
biases to have, but get abused by our modern food environment, Huxley knew we have built-in
psychological instincts for
paying attention to our social acceptance & rejection, reciprocity, fear of
missing something important, or our extraordinary addiction to looking at cute
kittens. These psychological instincts are really
useful to have, but our media environment adversarially exploits these
instincts.
How
did it get this way?
It’s
because we live in an attention
economy.
An
attention economy means that no matter what you aim to make (an app or a
website), you win by getting people to spend time. So what
starts as an honest competition to make useful things that peoplespend
their time on, must devolve into a
ruthless competition to seduce our deepest instincts to get more of people’s
time – a race to the bottom of the
brain stem.
The
problem is, to fix it, you can’t ask anyone who’s in that competition NOT to
maximize the time their users spend. Because someone else (another app, or
another website) will swoop in and siphon that time away to them instead.
In
fact, let’s say there’s some users who regret a portion of the time they spend
on a certain website and would love to have that website on
their team to help them spend less
time on it. Could that website help?
No. It’s that website’s job to keep their users
playing and clicking, lest their
competitor come in to take that attention elsewhere.
So
we’re not going to get out of this situation, or convince those apps or websites
to do something else until we create a new kind of competition – until there’s
a newthing apps and websites can compete for.
And
what if we could make that? What if instead of competing to get us to spend
time, apps and websites were competing to help us spend our time well?
What if they competed to create net positive contributions to people’s
lives?
I
don’t want to be distracted anymore. I want a world that helps me spend my time
well.
And
that’s the conversation I want to start with the “Design for Time Well Spent”
movement (http://timewellspent.io/) I’ve spent the
last several years thinking about Design Ethics, and the moral responsibility of
designers to be careful about the
billions of minutes and hours of other
people’s lives they
affect.
But
we’ve got to get real about how “responsible” designers can really be, when that
comes into conflict with the competition they’re forced to play in.
We
need something like an Organic label, to certify new products as being of a
different kind, and to reward those designers for being on people’s team to help
them spend their time well.
This
is a long road, but we can do it. We’ll need a new marketplace, with premium
shelf space in App Stores, browsers and news feeds that make a distinction
between the things that are all about helping people spend time well vs. the
ones that don’t, and we’ll need to make it easier to route people to those
choices.
Let’s
start that conversation now. Because I want a world where technology IS about
amplifying human potential again, and where I can trust-fall into the whirlpool
of technology and know that it IS on
my team to help me spend my time, and my life, well.
This
article originally appeared in tristanharris.com and is republished with permission. Tristan
is a design thinker, philosopher and entrepreneur. He is currently a product
philosopher at Google studying Design Ethics: how the design of technology
influences users’ behavior, attention and well-being. He is working on an
independent design movement for Time Well Spent, akin to
the Organic movement for farming, to shift from an economy that’s a race to the
bottom for seducing people’s attention, to an economy competing to create net
positive contributions to people’s lives.
Be The Change: Practice being mindful of how
you spend time on your computer and smart phone -- are your devices empowering
or controlling you?
Sourced From www.dailygood.org