Sebastian Deterding: What your designs say about you

翻译人员: Xiang Li 校对人员: Yu-Sheng Lin

We are today talking about moral persuasion:

我们今天要谈的是道德引导

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

当我们利用手段或者计谋

试图改变别人的行为时

by using technology and using design?

什么是道德的，什么是不道德的？

And I don't know what you expect,

我不知道你有什么想法

but when I was thinking about that issue,

但是，当我想到这个问题时

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

我很早就意识到

我不可能给出一个答案

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

我不可能告诉你们什么是道德的，什么是不道德的

because we're living in a pluralist society.

因为我们生活在一个多元化的社会当中

My values can be radically different from your values,

我的价值观可能迥异于

你的价值观

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

这也就是说基于我的价值观所得的道德或者不道德

might not necessarily be what you consider moral or immoral.

并不一定与你的道德标准一样

但是我也清楚，有一件事我能给你们

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

这也是我身后这位留给世界的

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

Socrates.

他是苏格拉底

It is questions.

那就是疑问

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

我能做的，以及我要和你们一起做的就是

给你们，就像刚开头那个问题，

is give you, like that initial question,

经由一系列的问题

a set of questions to figure out for yourselves,

找出自己的答案

layer by layer, like peeling an onion,

一层一层的探讨

就像剥洋葱一样

剥到最后你就会得到你所相信的

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

道德与不道德的价值观

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

我想用几个科技面的例子来说明

其中，人们利用了比赛的元素

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

来让别人去做事

首先是一个简单而且显而易见的问题

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

I would like to give you:

我要问的是

What are your intentions if you are designing something?

当你在盘算某件事的时候，你的意图是什么？

And obviously, intentions are not the only thing,

很明显，意图并不是唯一需要考虑的

所以，在各种运用之中，我要举另一个例子

so here is another example for one of these applications.

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

现在有一些这样的环保仪表盘

这样的仪表盘被装在了车上

dashboards built into cars --

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

从而促使你以更节能的方式去驾驶

This here is Nissan's MyLeaf,

这是日产的环保驾驶指示器

where your driving behavior is compared with the driving behavior

通过它，你的驾驶行为将会与

其他人的驾驶行为进行比较

of other people,

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

这样，你就可以和其他驾驶者竞争

看谁最节能

结果证明这样的方式相当的有效

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

它的效力之大，以至于人们

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

会采取一些不安全的驾驶方法

like not stopping at a red light,

比如说遇红灯也不停

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

因为一停下来你就要关闭再重新启动发动机

这样一来会消耗不少燃料，对吧？

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

So despite this being a very well-intended application,

所以尽管这种应用的意图是良好的

obviously there was a side effect of that.

但很明显还存在一定的副作用

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

关于副作用，还有另外一个例子

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

Commendable网站：

通过这个网站，父母们可以给孩子颁发小勋章

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

只要孩子们做了父母想要他们做的事

比如说系鞋带

like tying their shoes.

And at first that sounds very nice,

乍一听，这东西不错

very benign, well-intended.

非常有益，用意也很好

结果，你若是看了关于人们思维方式的研究，

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

caring about outcomes,

就会发现追求结果

caring about public recognition,

在意公众认可

caring about these kinds of public tokens of recognition

在意这样的代表公众认可的勋章

其实对于长期的心理健康来说

is not necessarily very helpful

for your long-term psychological well-being.

并没有什么帮助

It's better if you care about learning something.

更好的方式是在意学到了什么

It's better when you care about yourself

更好的方式是在意你自己

than how you appear in front of other people.

而不是在意你在别人面前是什么样的

所以这样的一种激励工具

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

就其本身来看

是有长期的副作用的

has a long-term side effect,

in that every time we use a technology

每一次当我们采取一些方法诸如

that uses something like public recognition or status,

利用公众认可或者公众地位的时候

we're actually positively endorsing this

实际上我们是在积极认可这种方法

as a good and normal thing to care about --

把它们塑造成了我们理应去在意的事

that way, possibly having a detrimental effect

这样一来，可能对我们整个文化族群

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

长期心理健康会有不良的影响

So that's a second, very obvious question:

所以，第二个显而易见的问题就是：

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

你在做的事有什么样的影响？

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

你所使用的这个装置所产生的影响

像节能

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

或是，你所使用切实的方法

to get people to do things --

让别人去做某件事情

public recognition?

比如公众认可，又会有什么影响

Now is that all -- intention, effect?

意图，影响，这就是全部了吗？

Well, there are some technologies which obviously combine both.

实际上，有些技术

显然两者兼具

Both good long-term and short-term effects

长短期看皆好的影响

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

以及良好的意图，比如像弗雷德•斯图兹曼的“自由者”软件

where the whole point of that application is --

这款软件的意图就在于

这样说吧，我们经常受到别人电话

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

和各种请求的狂轰滥炸

with this device,

有了这个软件我们可以让电脑

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

在预设的一段时间内断开网络连接

for a pre-set amount of time,

to actually get some work done.

这样你就有时间搞定其它事

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

我想大多数人都会认同

这个东西的意图是好的

and also has good consequences.

结果也不错

用米歇尔·福柯的话说

In the words of Michel Foucault,

it is a "technology of the self."

“这是满足自我的一种科技”

It is a technology that empowers the individual

这样的一种技术手段能赋予个人

to determine its own life course,

决定自己生活方式的权力

to shape itself.

塑造自己的权力

But the problem is, as Foucault points out,

但是问题是

福柯也指出了

that every technology of the self

每一种满足自我的方法

has a technology of domination as its flip side.

都会有一个对立的控制手段相伴

As you see in today's modern liberal democracies,

正如大家所见，如今的现代自由民主国家中

社会，国家

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

不仅允许我们定义自我，塑造自我

to shape our self,

it also demands it of us.

它也要求我们做到这些

它要求我们完善自我

It demands that we optimize ourselves,

that we control ourselves,

要求我们控制自我

要求我们时刻管理自我

that we self-manage continuously,

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

因为只有这样

一个自由的社会才能运作

These technologies want us to stay in the game

这些方法想要把我们限定在

that society has devised for us.

社会早已为我们设定好了的规则之中

They want us to fit in even better.

他们希望我们能更好的融入

They want us to optimize ourselves to fit in.

他们希望我们完善自我以融入这个社会

我并不想说这是一件坏事

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

我只是想到这样的一个例子

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

能让我们有一个大体的认识

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

不管你所看到的是怎样的一种科技或者设计

even something we consider as well-intended

就算是那些我们认为有良好意图的和良好结果的

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

就像是斯图兹曼的“自由者”软件

comes with certain values embedded in it.

都已经内涵了既定的价值观

And we can question these values.

然而我们能够质疑这样价值观

我们能够提出疑问：为了能更好的

We can question: Is it a good thing

融入社会而不断自我完善

that all of us continuously self-optimize ourselves

to fit better into that society?

这是好事吗？

Or to give you another example:

或者给你们说说另外一个例子

What about a piece of persuasive technology

是什么样的引导方法

让穆斯林女子一直裹着头巾？

that convinces Muslim women to wear their headscarves?

Is that a good or a bad technology

就这个方法的意图和影响来看

是好还是坏了？

in its intentions or in its effects?

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

答案基本上是取决于

你所持何种价值观

to make these kinds of judgments.

来进行判断

所以，第三个问题是就是：

So that's a third question:

What values do you use to judge?

你所用来进行判断的价值观是什么？

And speaking of values:

说到价值观

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

我注意到，在网上关于道德引导的讨论中

and when I'm talking with people,

我在和人们交流的时候

more often than not, there is a weird bias.

谈话中多半会有一种奇怪的偏见

那种偏见就是我们在问到的

And that bias is that we're asking:

Is this or that "still" ethical?

这个或那个“依旧”符合伦理吗？

Is it "still" permissible?

这是不是“依旧”被允许的？

We're asking things like:

我们会问

乐施会的捐助形式是

Is this Oxfam donation form,

where the regular monthly donation is the preset default,

每月的捐款数是之前就定好的

and people, maybe without intending it,

人们可能没打算捐

are encouraged or nudged into giving a regular donation

但是被这种形式鼓励或者驱使着

定期捐款，而不是一次性捐款

instead of a one-time donation,

is that "still' permissible?

这种方法还被允许吗？

这种方法还符合伦理吗？

Is it "still" ethical?

We're fishing at the low end.

我们这是在下游钓鱼

但事实上，那个问题

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

“这是不是依旧符合伦理”

只是审视伦理的其中一种方式

is just one way of looking at ethics.

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

因为，当你看到伦理的开端

在西方文化里

你会发现伦理还会有

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

一种非常不同的理念

For Aristotle, ethics was not about the question,

对亚里士多德来说，伦理不是关于

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

这是好的吗，或者这是坏的吗的提问

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

伦理是关于如何好好生活的疑问

而他用一个词将之总结，“arete”

And he put that in the word "arête,"

我们把它从古希腊语翻译过来就是“美德”

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

但它真正意味着优秀

But really, it means "excellence."

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

它的意思是不辜负自己做为一个人的

全部潜力

And that is an idea that, I think,

这种理念

保罗·理查德·布坎南最近的一篇论文将之很好地诠释了出来

Paul Richard Buchanan put nicely in a recent essay,

where he said, "Products are vivid arguments

他说：“商品是我们应该怎样过生活的

about how we should live our lives."

生动的论述。“

商品的设计是没有的或不道德的，

Our designs are not ethical or unethical

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

不管它们使用的是道德的或不道德的手段来说服我们

They have a moral component

但是它们确实有道义上的成分

其表现在所呈现给我们的对美好生活的

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

想象和渴望

that they present to us.

And if you look into the designed environment around us

如果以这种观点，你仔细观察周围

with that kind of lens,

那些设定好的环境

asking, "What is the vision of the good life

你来提问：“我们的商品，我们的设计呈现给我们的

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

是对美好生活怎样的一种想象？”

then you often get the shivers,

你可能会浑身一襟

because of how little we expect of each other,

因为我们对彼此的期待是如此得少

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

因为我们似乎对我们的生活

和美好生活的样子的期待是如此得少

and what the good life looks like.

所以，第四个问题就是：

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

What vision of the good life do your designs convey?

你所设计的的商品, 传达的是美好生活的

怎样的一种想象呢？

And speaking of design,

说到设计

you'll notice that I already broadened the discussion,

你注意到我已经扩大了这个讨论

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

因为这不仅仅是有引导性的技术的讨论

这是关于我们在这个世界上应用的任何一种设计方法的讨论

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

I don't know whether you know

我不清楚各位知不知道

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

伟大的交流研究者保罗·瓦兹拉威克

他在上世纪60年代发表了

我们无法不进行交流的论述

made the argument that we cannot not communicate.

即使我们选择了保持沉默

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

我们选择了保持沉默。我们通过选择沉默来进行某种交流

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

And in the same way that we cannot not communicate,

就像我们无法不进行交流一样

我们无法不进行引导

we cannot not persuade:

whatever we do or refrain from doing,

不管我们做什么或者制止做什么

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

不管我们在这个世界上应用了

怎样的设计方法

都有引导的成分

has a persuasive component.

It tries to affect people.

它试图影响人们

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

它给美好生活下好定义

将之摆在我们面前

也就如彼得-保罗·维比克

which is what Peter-Paul Verbeek,

the Dutch philosopher of technology, says.

这位荷兰的技术哲学家所说的

作为设计者，不论我们有没有打算

No matter whether we as designers intend it or not,

we materialize morality.

我们都把道德具象化了

We make certain things harder and easier to do.

我们让一些事情做起来更困难或者更容易了

We organize the existence of people.

我们把人类的存在安排得有秩有序

We put a certain vision

我们通过在世界中的各种应用

of what good or bad or normal or usual is

把孰好孰坏，把什么是道德的还是司空见惯的

in front of people,

by everything we put out there in the world.

某种想象摆在人们面前

即使是像课桌椅这种无伤大雅的东西

Even something as innocuous as a set of school chairs

is a persuasive technology,

也是一种引导技术

因为这也呈现并物质化了

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

某种美好生活的想象

在这种教学和聆听的美好生活中

a good life in which teaching and learning and listening

is about one person teaching, the others listening;

是一个一教课，其他人听课

听课是要坐着听的

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

听课是为了自己

in which you learn for yourself;

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

你不应该去改变这种规则

because the chairs are fixed to the ground.

因为椅子是固定在地上的

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

甚至一只无伤大雅的时尚坐椅

like this one by Arne Jacobsen,

像这只阿纳·雅各布森设计的坐椅

is a persuasive technology,

也是一种引导技术

因为，再一次的，这与美好生活的理念相联系

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

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

美好生活

一种你作为设计者所赞成的生活

你说：“在美好生活中，

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

商品就像这把椅子一样被持续或者不持续地生产出来

as this chair.

Workers are treated as well or as badly

这些工人与那些打造椅子的工人的待遇

as the workers were treated that built that chair."

同样好，或者同样糟糕

The good life is a life where design is important

美好生活中设计十分重要

因为为了那种精心设计的椅子

because somebody obviously took the time and spent the money

显然有人花了时间又花了金钱来买

for that kind of well-designed chair;

where tradition is important,

这其中传统也同样重要

因为这是件传统的经典

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

而且有人对这很在意

这里存在着炫耀性消费

and where there is something as conspicuous consumption,

花费大笔的金钱在这么一把椅子上

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

去向其他人展示自己的地位

on such a chair,

这也很正常

to signal to other people what your social status is.

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

好了，这就是我今天想带各位

I wanted to lead you through today;

体会的一些层次，一些问题 ----

当你设计某件事情时

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

你的意图是什么？

when you're designing something?

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

有意识或是无意识的，你将会造成了哪些影响？

你判断这些所用的又是

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

什么样的价值观?

在这其中，你真正想表达的

What are the virtues, the aspirations

that you're actually expressing in that?

美德和渴望又是什么？

And how does that apply,

这些又是如何运用的？

not just to persuasive technology,

不仅仅是运用在引导技术中

but to everything you design?

这些是如何运用在你设计的每一件事中的？

Do we stop there?

我们就到此为止了吗？

I don't think so.

我不这么认为

I think that all of these things are eventually informed

我觉得所有这些事情最终

by the core of all of this,

都被这个所了解

and this is nothing but life itself.

这不是别的什么东西，这个就是生活本身

Why, when the question of what the good life is

为什么？当美好生活的问题

informs everything that we design,

包括了我们所设计的一切

should we stop at design and not ask ourselves:

我们是不是应该停止设计，也不要过问

How does it apply to our own life?

它是如何适用于我们自己的生活的呢？

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

“为什么一盏灯一座房子可以成为艺术品，

but not our life?"

而我们的生活就不能呢？

as Michel Foucault puts it.

米歇尔·福柯如是说

Just to give you a practical example of Buster Benson.

给你们举一下伯斯特·本森的现实的例子

This is Buster setting up a pull-up machine

这是伯斯特在他新开办的习惯实验室的办公室里

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

搭起的引体向上机

在那里，他们还尝试着为人们建造其他应用

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

像是健康月(一个健康促进的游戏网站)

for people.

那么他为什么要造这么个东西呢？

And why is he building a thing like this?

Well, here is the set of axioms

这有一些格言

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

是习惯实验室，伯斯特的新公司，写给他们自己的

是关于他们建造这些应用时

on how they wanted to work together as a team

when they're building these applications --

如何想要进行团队合作的

a set of moral principles they set themselves

这是他们为自己共同合作

所写的一系列道德准则

for working together --

one of them being,

其中一条是

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

“我们照顾好自己并且控制好自己的倦怠”

因为根本上，如果不去问你自己想要

Because ultimately, how can you ask yourselves

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

生活在怎样的一种

美好生活中

you want to convey and create with your designs

你如何能设计出

without asking the question:

能为你传达的想创造的

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

那种美好生活的想象

的商品?

以此为总结 感谢各位

And with that,

I thank you.

(Applause)

(掌声)