Sebastian Deterding: What your designs say about you

Translator: Klara Pelcl Reviewer: Lenka Tušar

We are today talking about moral persuasion:

Danes govorimo o moralnem prepričevanju.

What is moral and immoral in trying to change people's behaviors

Kaj je moralno in kaj nemoralno

pri spreminjanju vedenja posameznikov

by using technology and using design?

z uporabo tehnologije in dizajna?

And I don't know what you expect,

Ne vem, kaj pričakujete,

but when I was thinking about that issue,

toda, ko sem sam razmišljal o tem problemu,

I early on realized what I'm not able to give you are answers.

sem kmalu spoznal,

da vam ne morem ponuditi odgovorov na ta vprašanja.

I'm not able to tell you what is moral or immoral,

Ne morem vam reči, kaj je moralno in kaj ne,

because we're living in a pluralist society.

ker živimo v pluralistični družnbi.

My values can be radically different from your values,

Moje vrednote so lahko popolnoma drugačne

od vaših.

which means that what I consider moral or immoral based on that

To pomeni, da je tisto, kar je zame moralno in tisto, kar je zame nemoralno

might not necessarily be what you consider moral or immoral.

ni nujno enako kot tisto, kar vi vidite kot moralno ali nemoralno.

Ob tem razmišljanju pa sem ugotovil tudi, da vam kljub vsemu lahko dam nekaj.

But I also realized there is one thing that I could give you,

In to je tisto, kar je ta moški svetu dal že dolgo pred mano.

and that is what this guy behind me gave the world --

Socrates.

Sokrat.

It is questions.

To so vprašanja.

What I can do and what I would like to do with you

Tisto, kar lahko naredim in, kar bi rad naredil za vas je,

da vam ponudim prvo vprašanje,

is give you, like that initial question,

skupek vprašanj

a set of questions to figure out for yourselves,

na katera si boste odgovarjali sami,

layer by layer, like peeling an onion,

plast za plastjo,

kot da bi lupili čebulo,

in se tako dokopali do jedra tistega, za kar menite,

getting at the core of what you believe is moral or immoral persuasion.

da je moralno ali nemoralno prepričevanje.

And I'd like to do that with a couple of examples of technologies

Pri tem si bom pomagal z dvema primeroma

tehnologij, v katerih so ljudje uporabljali elemente igre,

where people have used game elements to get people to do things.

s katerimi so pripravili ljudi do določenih dejanj.

Torej prvo zelo preprosto vprašanje,

So it's at first a very simple, very obvious question

I would like to give you:

ki bi vam ga rad zastavil je:

What are your intentions if you are designing something?

Kakšen je vaš namen, ko nekaj oblikujete?

And obviously, intentions are not the only thing,

In očitno nameni niso edina stvar,

zato je tu še en primer.

so here is another example for one of these applications.

There are a couple of these kinds of Eco dashboards right now --

Pred kratkim so izumili eko armaturne plošče.

Gre za armaturne plošče v avtomobilih,

dashboards built into cars --

which try to motivate you to drive more fuel-efficiently.

ki z eko-indikatorjem spodbujajo voznike k varčni vožnji.

This here is Nissan's MyLeaf,

Tukaj vidimo Nissanov Myleaf,

where your driving behavior is compared with the driving behavior

ki vaše vedenje na cesti primerja

z vedenjem drugih voznikov.

of other people,

so you can compete for who drives a route the most fuel-efficiently.

Tako lahko tekmujete in preverjate

kdo vozi najbolj varčno.

Te zadeve so se izkazale za izredno učinkovite.

And these things are very effective, it turns out --

Celo tako zelo, da so motivirale ljudi,

so effective that they motivate people to engage in unsafe driving behaviors,

da so vozili neodgovorno,

like not stopping at a red light,

na primer prevozili rdečo luč.

because that way you have to stop and restart the engine,

To so počeli zato, ker je treba pri rdeči luči ustaviti in ponovno zagnati motor,

to pa zagotovo porabi nekaj goriva, kajne?

and that would use quite some fuel, wouldn't it?

So despite this being a very well-intended application,

Torej kljub zelo dobrem namenu aplikacije,

obviously there was a side effect of that.

očitno naletimo tudi na stranske učinke.

Here's another example for one of these side effects.

Tu je še en primer takšnih stranskih učinkov.

Commendable: a site that allows parents to give their kids little badges

Commendable:

Spletna stran, na kateri starši svojim otrokom podeljujejo značke

for doing the things that parents want their kids to do,

za naloge, ki so jih njihovi otroci opravili.

Na primer zavezali čevlje.

like tying their shoes.

And at first that sounds very nice,

Na prvi pogled je slišati zelo lepo,

very benign, well-intended.

zelo neškodljivo, z lepim namenom.

Toda, če si ogledamo raziskave človeške miselnosti, ugotovimo, da

But it turns out, if you look into research on people's mindset,

caring about outcomes,

skrb glede rezultatov,

caring about public recognition,

skrb glede javne podobe,

caring about these kinds of public tokens of recognition

skrb glede takšnih vrst javnih priznanj

dolgoročno ni najbolj koristna

is not necessarily very helpful

for your long-term psychological well-being.

za vaše dobro psihično počutje.

It's better if you care about learning something.

Bolje je, da nas zanima, kako bi se česa naučili.

It's better when you care about yourself

Bolje je, kadar nas bolj skrbi zase

than how you appear in front of other people.

kot za to, kako nas vidijo drugi.

Torej, takšno motivacijsko orodje,

So that kind of motivational tool that is used actually, in and of itself,

ki se ga uporablja dejansko v in na samem sebi

ima dolgoročne stranske učinke

has a long-term side effect,

in that every time we use a technology

vsakič, ko uporabljamo tehnologijo,

that uses something like public recognition or status,

ki uporablja javna priznanja ali izboljšanje statusa,

we're actually positively endorsing this

dejansko promoviramo ravno to

as a good and normal thing to care about --

kot dobro stvar, za katero nas mora skrbeti.

that way, possibly having a detrimental effect

Na takšen način lahko dosežemo škodljiv učinek na

on the long-term psychological well-being of ourselves as a culture.

dolgoročno psihično počutje nas kot pripadnikov določene kulture.

So that's a second, very obvious question:

To je torej drugo, zelo očitno vprašanje:

What are the effects of what you're doing --

Kakšne bodo posledice naših dejanj?

the effects you're having with the device, like less fuel,

Učinki, ki bo imela naprava,

kot je manj porabljenega goriva,

as well as the effects of the actual tools you're using

pa tudi učinki orodij, ki jih uporabljamo,

to get people to do things --

da pri ljudeh dosegamo določena dejanja.

public recognition?

Javna priznanja.

Now is that all -- intention, effect?

Je to vse? Namen, učinek?

Well, there are some technologies which obviously combine both.

No, tu so še tehnologije,

ki seveda združujejo oboje.

Both good long-term and short-term effects

Tako dolgoročne kot tudi kratkoročne učinke

and a positive intention like Fred Stutzman's "Freedom,"

in dober namen, kot ga je imel Freda Stutzman s Freedomom.

where the whole point of that application is --

Namen te aplikacije je,

no, običajno nas tako bombardirajo

well, we're usually so bombarded with constant requests by other people,

s klici in prošnjami drugih ljudi,

with this device,

s pomočjo te naprave pa lahko izklopimo povezovanje s spletom

you can shut off the Internet connectivity of your PC of choice

na svojem osebnem računalniku za čas, ki ga določimo vnaprej

for a pre-set amount of time,

to actually get some work done.

in tako opravimo svoje delo.

And I think most of us will agree that's something well-intended,

Večina bi se strinjala,

da gre res za dober namen

and also has good consequences.

in dobre posledice.

Kot pravi Michel Foucault,

In the words of Michel Foucault,

it is a "technology of the self."

"Gre za tehnologijo na sebi"

It is a technology that empowers the individual

Gre za tehnologijo, s pomočjo katere posameznik

to determine its own life course,

določa potek njenega življenja,

to shape itself.

v katerem se oblikuje.

But the problem is, as Foucault points out,

Toda težava je,

kot pravi Foucault,

that every technology of the self

da ima vsaka tehnologija na sebi

has a technology of domination as its flip side.

na drugi strani tudi tehnologijo dominacije.

As you see in today's modern liberal democracies,

Kot danes vidimo v moralnih liberalnih demokracijah,

družba, država,

the society, the state, not only allows us to determine our self,

ne le omogočata, da določamo in oblikujemo sami sebe

to shape our self,

it also demands it of us.

ampak to od nas celo zahtevata.

Zahtevata, da se optimiziramo,

It demands that we optimize ourselves,

that we control ourselves,

se nadzorujemo,

se nenehno usmerjamo,

that we self-manage continuously,

because that's the only way in which such a liberal society works.

saj je to edini način,

na katerega lahko deluje takšna liberalna družba.

These technologies want us to stay in the game

Te tehnologije od nas zahtevajo, da ostanemo v igri,

that society has devised for us.

ki jo je za nas ustvarila družba.

They want us to fit in even better.

Hočejo, da se še bolje vklopimo.

They want us to optimize ourselves to fit in.

Hočejo, da se optimiziramo, da se bomo bolje vklopili vanjo.

Ne pravim, da je to nujno slaba stvar.

Now, I don't say that is necessarily a bad thing;

Mislim le, da nas ta primer

I just think that this example points us to a general realization,

usmerja k splošnemu spoznanju:

and that is: no matter what technology or design you look at,

Ne glede na to, katero tehnologijo ali dizajn si ogledamo,

even something we consider as well-intended

celo kaj, za kar mislimo, da ima dober namen in pozitivne učinke,

and as good in its effects as Stutzman's Freedom,

kot je bil Stutzmanov Freedom,

comes with certain values embedded in it.

vsaka ima vgrajene določene vrednote.

And we can question these values.

O teh vrednotah pa se lahko sprašujemo.

Lahko se vprašamo: Ali je dobro,

We can question: Is it a good thing

da se vsi nenehno izboljšujemo,

that all of us continuously self-optimize ourselves

to fit better into that society?

da bi se bolje vklopili v družbo?

Or to give you another example:

Naj navedem še en primer.

What about a piece of persuasive technology

Kaj pa prepričevalna tehnologija,

ki muslimanke prepričuje, da si obraze prekrijejo z rutami?

that convinces Muslim women to wear their headscarves?

Is that a good or a bad technology

Je to dobra ali slaba tehnologija

glede na namen in učinek?

in its intentions or in its effects?

Well, that basically depends on the kind of values you bring to bear

V bistvu je pomembno,

kakšen je vaš sistem vrednot,

to make these kinds of judgments.

saj je od tega odvisna naša razsodba.

To je torej tretje vprašanje:

So that's a third question:

What values do you use to judge?

S katerimi vrednotami sodimo?

And speaking of values:

Ko smo že pri vrednotah, naj povem,

I've noticed that in the discussion about moral persuasion online

da sem tako v spletnih razpravah o moralnem prepričevanju

and when I'm talking with people,

kot tudi v pogovorih z ostalimi

more often than not, there is a weird bias.

opazil, da na tem mestu pogosto postanemo pristranski.

Ta pristranskost se pokaže, ko se vprašamo,

And that bias is that we're asking:

Is this or that "still" ethical?

ali je to ali ono "še vedno" etično?

Is it "still" permissible?

Je to "še vedno" dovoljeno?

We're asking things like:

Sprašujemo se na primer,

ali je ta Oxfamov obrazec za donacije,

Is this Oxfam donation form,

where the regular monthly donation is the preset default,

s prednastavljenimi mesečnimi donacijami,

and people, maybe without intending it,

ki ljudi, morda celo nenamerno,

are encouraged or nudged into giving a regular donation

spodbuja ali nagovarja

v redne namesto enkratnih donacij

instead of a one-time donation,

is that "still' permissible?

še vedno sprejemljiv?

Je to še vedno etično?

Is it "still" ethical?

We're fishing at the low end.

V tem primeru hodimo po tankem ledu.

Toda v bistvu vprašanje

But in fact, that question, "Is it 'still' ethical?"

"Je to še vedno etično"

predstavlja le enega izmed načinov, kako gledamo na etiko.

is just one way of looking at ethics.

Because if you look at the beginning of ethics in Western culture,

Če se vrnemo na začetke etike

v zahodni kulturi

bomo videli zelo drugačne poglede

you see a very different idea of what ethics also could be.

na to, kaj naj bi bila etika.

For Aristotle, ethics was not about the question,

Aristotel etike ni videl kot vprašanje

"Is that still good, or is it bad?"

ali je nekaj še vedno dobro ali slabo.

Ethics was about the question of how to live life well.

Pri etiki je šlo za vprašanje, kako živeti dobro življenje.

Ta pojem je združil v besedo "arete",

And he put that in the word "arête,"

ki jo iz latinščine prevedemo kot "vrlina",

which we, from [Ancient Greek], translate as "virtue."

dejansko pa pomeni odličnost.

But really, it means "excellence."

It means living up to your own full potential as a human being.

Pomeni, da dosežemo svoj potencial

kot človeška bitja.

And that is an idea that, I think,

To je tisto,

kar je po mojem mnenju lepo pojasnil Paul Richard Buchanan v svojem eseju,

Paul Richard Buchanan put nicely in a recent essay,

where he said, "Products are vivid arguments

v katerem pravi: "Izdelki so slikoviti argumenti

about how we should live our lives."

v razpravi o tem, kako naj živimo svoja življenja."

Naši dizajni niso etični ali neetični

Our designs are not ethical or unethical

in that they're using ethical or unethical means of persuading us.

v smislu da uporabljajo etična ali neetična sredstva za prepričevanje.

They have a moral component

Moralno komponento imajo

že v sami viziji in težnji po dobrem življenju,

just in the kind of vision and the aspiration of the good life

ki nam ju predstavljajo.

that they present to us.

And if you look into the designed environment around us

Če si ogledamo okolico, ki nas obkroža

with that kind of lens,

s tega vidika

asking, "What is the vision of the good life

in se vprašamo: "Kakšna je vizija dobrega življenja,

that our products, our design, present to us?",

ki nam jo predstavljajo naši izdelki, naš dizajn,"

then you often get the shivers,

nas pogosto spreleti srh,

because of how little we expect of each other,

saj drug od drugega pričakujemo veliko manj,

of how little we actually seem to expect of our life,

kot se pravzaprav zdi, da pričakujemo

od svojega življenja in kakšno naj bi bilo dobro življenje.

and what the good life looks like.

To je torej četrto vprašanje, ki vam ga zastavljam:

So that's a fourth question I'd like to leave you with:

What vision of the good life do your designs convey?

Kakšno vizijo dobrega življenja

izražajo vaši dizajni?

And speaking of design,

Ko smo že pri dizajnu,

you'll notice that I already broadened the discussion,

opazili ste, da sem že razširil razpravo.

because it's not just persuasive technology that we're talking about here,

Tu namreč ne govorimo o prepričevalni tehnologiji,

govorimo o vseh dizajnih, kar jih na svetu obstaja.

it's any piece of design that we put out here in the world.

I don't know whether you know

Ne vem, če že veste,

the great communication researcher Paul Watzlawick who, back in the '60s,

da je veliki raziskovalec komunikacije Paul Watzlawick,

v 60-ih letih postavil argument,

da ne moremo ne-komunicirati.

made the argument that we cannot not communicate.

Tudi, če se odločimo za molk,

Even if we choose to be silent, we chose to be silent,

smo se odločili, da bomo tiho. Tudi z izbiro molka nekaj povemo.

and we're communicating something by choosing to be silent.

And in the same way that we cannot not communicate,

Enako kot ne moremo ne-komunicirati

ne moremo ne-prepričevati.

we cannot not persuade:

whatever we do or refrain from doing,

Karkoli storimo ali ne storimo,

whatever we put out there as a piece of design, into the world,

karkoli kot neko obliko dizajna

spravimo na svet,

vsebuje komponento prepričevanja.

has a persuasive component.

It tries to affect people.

Ta skuša vplivati na ljudi.

It puts a certain vision of the good life out there in front of us,

V dobro življenje vnese določeno vizijo

in jo postavi pred nas.

To je tisto, kar pravi Peter-Paul Verbeek,

which is what Peter-Paul Verbeek,

the Dutch philosopher of technology, says.

nizozemski filozof in tehnolog.

Ne glede na to, ali kot dizajnerji to nameravamo ali ne,

No matter whether we as designers intend it or not,

we materialize morality.

pri svojem delu materializiramo moralnost.

We make certain things harder and easier to do.

S svojim delom olajšamo ali otežimo določene stvari.

We organize the existence of people.

Organiziramo obstoj ljudi.

We put a certain vision

Ustvarjamo določeno vizijo o tem, kaj med nami je dobro ali slabo,

of what good or bad or normal or usual is

normalno ali običajno.

in front of people,

by everything we put out there in the world.

To počnemo z vsem, kar doprinesemo na svet.

Še kaj tako vsakdanjega, kot so šolski stoli,

Even something as innocuous as a set of school chairs

is a persuasive technology,

je pravzaprav prepričevalna tehnologija.

Predstavlja in materializira namreč

because it presents and materializes a certain vision of the good life --

določeno vizijo o dobrem življenju,

dobrem življenju, v katerem je poučevanje, učenje in poslušanje

a good life in which teaching and learning and listening

is about one person teaching, the others listening;

odvisno od osebe, ki poučuje, tistih, ki poslušajo,

v katerem se ljudje učimo medtem ko sedimo,

in which it is about learning-is-done-while-sitting;

v katerem se učimo zase,

in which you learn for yourself;

in which you're not supposed to change these rules,

v katerem se naj ne bi spreminjalo teh pravil,

because the chairs are fixed to the ground.

saj so stoli pritrjeni na tla.

And even something as innocuous as a single-design chair,

In celo nekaj tako običajnega, kot je dizajnerski stol,

like this one by Arne Jacobsen,

kot tisti, ki ga je naredil Arne Jacobsen,

is a persuasive technology,

je prepričevalna tehnologija.

Zato namreč, ker spet posreduje zamisel o tem, kakšno je dobro življenje.

because, again, it communicates an idea of the good life:

a good life -- a life that you, as a designer, consent to by saying,

Dobro življenje,

življenje, v katerega bi kot dizajnerji privolili tako,

da bi rekli: "V dobrem življenju"

"In a good life, goods are produced as sustainably or unsustainably

se dobrine proizvaja trajnostno ali netrajnostno kot ta stol.

as this chair.

Workers are treated as well or as badly

Z delavci se dela dobro ali slabo,

as the workers were treated that built that chair."

tako, kot se je delalo s tistimi, ki so ustvarili ta stol."

The good life is a life where design is important

Dobro življenje je življenje, v katerem je dizajn pomemben,

ker si je nekdo očitno vzel čas in zapravil denar

because somebody obviously took the time and spent the money

za takšen dobro oblikovan stol,

for that kind of well-designed chair;

where tradition is important,

kjer je pomembna tradicija,

saj je to tradicionalna klasika

because this is a traditional classic and someone cared about this;

in nekomu je bilo mar zanjo

in ko imamo opravka z nečim tako izstopajočim, kot je potrošnja,

and where there is something as conspicuous consumption,

kjer je O.K. in normalno

where it is OK and normal to spend a humongous amount of money

zapraviti gromozanske količine denarja za takšen stol,

on such a chair,

da bi ostalim pokazali svoj socialni status.

to signal to other people what your social status is.

So these are the kinds of layers, the kinds of questions

To so torej naše plasti, vrste vprašanj,

I wanted to lead you through today;

ki sem vam jih danes želel približati.

Vprašanje "Kakšen je namen,

the question of: What are the intentions that you bring to bear

ki ga bomo določili svojemu dizajnu?"

when you're designing something?

What are the effects, intended and unintended, that you're having?

"Kakšne učinke, namerne in nenamerne bo imel?"

"Kakšne vrednote bomo uporabljali,

What are the values you're using to judge those?

ko bomo presojali glede tega?"

Kakšne so odlike, težnje,

What are the virtues, the aspirations

that you're actually expressing in that?

ki jih s svojim delom izražamo?

And how does that apply,

Kako to sovpada

not just to persuasive technology,

ne le s prepričevalno tehnologijo

but to everything you design?

temveč z vsem, kar oblikujemo?

Do we stop there?

Se tu ustavimo?

I don't think so.

Ne bi rekel.

I think that all of these things are eventually informed

Mislim, da vse te zadeve prej ali slej pridobijo informacije

by the core of all of this,

iz jedra vsega tega

and this is nothing but life itself.

in to ni nič drugega kot življenje samo.

Why, when the question of what the good life is

Zakaj, ko pa vprašanje, kaj je dobro življenje,

informs everything that we design,

osmisli vse, kar oblikujemo,

should we stop at design and not ask ourselves:

bi se morali ustaviti pri svojem dizajnu in se ne vprašati,

How does it apply to our own life?

kako se to navezuje na naša življenja?

"Why should the lamp or the house be an art object,

"Zakaj bi morala biti svetilka ali hiša umetniški objekt,

but not our life?"

naše življenje pa ne,"

as Michel Foucault puts it.

kot pravi Michel Foucault.

Just to give you a practical example of Buster Benson.

Naj navedem še praktični primer Busterja Bensona.

This is Buster setting up a pull-up machine

Tu je Buster, ki sestavlja napravo za dvigovanje

at the office of his new start-up, Habit Labs,

v pisarni svojega start-up podjetja Habit Labs,

kjer delajo na izboljšavi ostalih aplikacij,

where they're trying to build other applications like "Health Month"

kot je Health Month.

for people.

Zakaj torej izdeluje nekaj takšnega?

And why is he building a thing like this?

Well, here is the set of axioms

No, tu je skupek aksiomov

that Habit Labs, Buster's start-up, put up for themselves

ki so jih v Habit Labs, Busterjevem start-upu ustvarili zase,

glede svojega dela kot skupine

on how they wanted to work together as a team

when they're building these applications --

ko delajo na teh aplikacijah.

a set of moral principles they set themselves

Gre za skupek moralnih načel, ki so jih postavili sami

in veljajo za njihovo skupno delo.

for working together --

one of them being,

Eno izmed načel je:

"We take care of our own health and manage our own burnout."

"Sami skrbimo za svoje zdravje in pazimo, da nas ne doleti izgorelost"

Kako se konec koncev namreč lahko vprašamo

Because ultimately, how can you ask yourselves

and how can you find an answer on what vision of the good life

in najdemo odgovor na to,

kakšno vizijo dobrega življenja

you want to convey and create with your designs

želimo izraziti in ustvariti s svojimi dizajni

without asking the question:

ne da bi se vprašali,

What vision of the good life do you yourself want to live?

kakšno vizijo dobrega življenja

bi želeli živeti sami?

Za konec se vam zahvaljujem.

And with that,

I thank you.

(Applause)

(Aplavz)