How better tech could protect us from distraction | Tristan Harris

譯者: Wei Jiang 審譯者: jackson leo

What does it mean to spend our time well?

利用好自己的時間意味著什麼？

I spend a lot of my time

我花了很多時間

thinking about how to spend my time.

思考怎樣運用時間。

Probably too much -- I probably obsess over it.

也許思考太多了── 我可能癡迷於這個問題。

My friends think I do.

至少我的朋友是這麼認為。

But I feel like I kind of have to, because these days,

但我必須得這麼做，因為這些天，

it feels like little bits of my time kind of slip away from me,

我覺得時間從我的身邊溜走，

and when that happens, it feels like parts of my life are slipping away.

當這發生的時候， 好像我生命的一部分溜走了。

Specifically,

準確的說，

it feels like little bits of my time get slipped away

我感覺那些流逝的時間

to various things like this,

是被雜七雜八的事情用掉了，

like technology -- I check things.

比如科技──在我不時查看東西時。

I'll give you an example.

舉個例子。

If this email shows up --

如果這封郵件出現了──

how many of you have gotten an email like this, right?

你們當中有很多人收過 類似的郵件，對吧？

I've been tagged in a photo.

我被標記在一張照片上。

When this appears,

這種情況出現時，

I can't help but click on it right now.

我不由自主地馬上點開它。

Right? Because, like, what if it's a bad photo?

因為擔心那可能是一張不好的照片。

So I have to click it right now.

所以我不得不立即查看。

But I'm not just going to click "See photo,"

但我不僅僅點擊「查看照片」，

what I'm actually going to do is spend the next 20 minutes.

接下來我會在這件事上 花費 20 分鐘。

(Laughter)

（笑聲）

But the worst part is that I know this is what's going to happen,

但最糟糕的事情是 我明明知道接下來會發生什麼，

and even knowing that's what's going to happen

甚至即使我知道接來下會發生什麼，

doesn't stop me from doing it again the next time.

我下次依然會這麼做。

Or I find myself in a situation like this,

再舉個例子，

where I check my email and I pull down to refresh,

我檢查郵件並下拉更新。

But the thing is that 60 seconds later,

可是 60 秒之後，

I'll pull down to refresh again.

我將會再次下拉更新。

Why am I doing this?

我為什麼要那麼做？

This doesn't make any sense.

這毫無意義。

But I'll give you a hint why this is happening.

下面我來解釋為什麼會這樣。

What do you think makes more money in the United States

你認為在美國做什麼

than movies, game parks and baseball combined?

會比電影、野生保護區 和棒球三者加起來還賺錢？

Slot machines.

答案是吃角子老虎機。

How can slot machines make all this money

老虎機是怎麼賺到那麼多錢的？

when we play with such small amounts of money?

通常我們花很少錢玩，

We play with coins.

或者說我們只是用硬幣去玩。

How is this possible?

這怎麼可能？

Well, the thing is ...

好吧，事實是……

my phone is a slot machine.

我的手機就像台老虎機。

Every time I check my phone,

每次我查看我的手機，

I'm playing the slot machine to see,

我都像在玩老虎機並想著，

what am I going to get?

我將得到什麼？

What am I going to get?

我將得到什麼？

Every time I check my email,

每次我檢查郵件，

I'm playing the slot machine,

我都像在玩老虎機並想著

saying, "What am I going to get?"

「我將會得知什麼呢？」

Every time I scroll a news feed,

每次我看更新的新聞動態，

I'm playing the slot machine to see,

我都像在玩老虎機，

what am I going to get next?

想著接下來我能看到什麼？

And the thing is that,

實際上，

again, knowing exactly how this works -- and I'm a designer,

我非常清楚這是怎麼發生的， 因為我是個設計師。

I know exactly how the psychology of this works,

我非常清楚這些行為下的心理學，

I know exactly what's going on --

我非常清楚發生了什麼，

but it doesn't leave me with any choice,

但這也沒有給我選擇權，

I still just get sucked into it.

我仍舊深陷於此。

So what are we going to do?

接下來我們該怎麼辦？

Because it leaves us with this all-or-nothing relationship

因為在當今的科技下 没有什麼折中的選擇，對吧？

with technology, right?

You're either on,

你要麼選擇使用它，

and you're connected and distracted all the time,

那麼你就會一直 被它所打擾，無法專心，

or you're off,

或者你乾脆不使用它，

but then you're wondering,

但是你就會想

am I missing something important?

我是不是錯過了什麼重要的事？

In other words, you're either distracted

換句話說，

你要麼被它弄得無法專心，

or you have fear of missing out.

要麼你自己會擔心， 唯恐錯過了什麼。

Right?

對吧？

So we need to restore choice.

所以我們需要一個 可以不再這樣的辦法。

We want to have a relationship with technology

我們希望可以運用科技，

that gives us back choice about how we spend time with it,

同時也能再度擁有選擇 如何度過時光的權力。

and we're going to need help from designers,

我們將需要設計師的幫助，

because knowing this stuff doesn't help.

因為光知道這些理論並沒有什麼用。

We're going to need design help.

我們需要從設計上入手。

So what would that look like?

那麼這將會變成什麼樣呢？

So let's take an example that we all face:

我舉個我們都會遇到的例子：

chat -- text messaging.

聊天──文字訊息。

So let's say there's two people.

假設這裡有兩個人。

Nancy's on the left and she's working on a document,

左邊的是南希，她在處理文件，

and John's on the right.

右邊的是約翰。

And John suddenly remembers,

這時約翰突然想起，

"I need to ask Nancy for that document before I forget."

「我要趕快去跟南希 要那份文件，免得我忘了。」

So when he sends her that message,

所以當他傳訊息問南希這件事時，

it blows away her attention.

南希的注意力被打斷了。

That's what we're doing all the time, bulldozing each other's attention,

這是我們一直做的事情， 強行打斷彼此的注意力，

left and right.

不論何時何地。

And there's serious cost to this,

這種做法也帶來了嚴重的代價，

because every time we interrupt each other,

因為每次我們互相打斷，

it takes us about 23 minutes, on average,

都會花費我們大概 23 分鐘

to refocus our attention.

去重新集中注意力。

We actually cycle through two different projects

事實上，在我們 回到原本要做的事情之前，

before we come back to the original thing we were doing.

我們在兩件不同的事情上循環。

This is Gloria Mark's research combined with Microsoft research,

這是一份整合了格洛瑞亞．馬克 和微軟的調查的報告，

that showed this.

報告證實了這一點。

And her research also shows that it actually trains bad habits.

並且她的研究還表明 這還會讓我們養成壞習慣，

The more interruptions we get externally,

我們被外界打擾的越多，

it's conditioning and training us to interrupt ourselves.

我們越被訓練去打擾自己，

We actually self-interrupt every three-and-a-half minutes.

實際上每 3.5 分鐘我們就自擾一次。

This is crazy.

這太瘋狂了。

So how do we fix this?

我們該怎麼挽救？

Because Nancy and John are in this all-or-nothing relationship.

因為南希和約翰之間 並沒有什麼中間選擇，

Nancy might want to disconnect,

南希也許不願被打擾，

but then she'd be worried:

但她會擔心：

What if I'm missing something important?

「我錯過了重要的事情怎麼辦？」

Design can fix this problem.

設計可以解決這個問題。

Let's say you have Nancy again on the left,

在此假設南希在左側，

John on the right.

約翰在右側。

And John remembers, "I need to send Nancy that document."

約翰記著「我得發給南希這份文件。」

Except this time,

然而這次，

Nancy can mark that she's focused.

南希可以說她正在專心工作。

Let's say she drags a slider and says,

她一邊調整設定一邊說：

"I want to be focused for 30 minutes,"

「我想集中精力 30 分鐘。」

so -- bam -- she's focused.

所以──她聚精會神起來。

Now when John wants to message her,

現在約翰想要傳訊息給她，

he can get the thought off of his mind --

他就不用再掛記著這件事──

because he has a need, he has this thought,

他需要這麼做，他有這個想法，

and he needs to dump it out before he forgets.

而且他需要在忘記之前實現它，

Except this time,

但這次不行，

it holds the messages so that Nancy can still focus,

軟體暫時保留這則訊息， 所以她可以繼續保持專注。

but John can get the thought off of his mind.

約翰也可以不用再記著這件事。

But this only works if one last thing is true,

但是唯有滿足一個條件， 這個設想才能成立，

which is that Nancy needs to know that if something is truly important,

就是南希需要知道 這件事是否真的重要，

John can still interrupt.

約翰還是可以來打擾。

But instead of having constant accidental or mindless interruptions,

但不是無心的打擾，

we're now only creating conscious interruptions,

我們採用有意識的打擾手段。

So we're doing two things here.

為此我們需要做兩件事。

We're creating a new choice for both Nancy and John,

我們為南希和約翰 創造了一個新的選擇，

But there's a second, subtle thing we're doing here, too.

但是我們在這裡添加了一個小條件，

And it's that we're changing the question we're answering.

就是我們要改變我們回答的問題。

Instead of the goal of chat being:

與其將對話的目標設為：

"Let's design it so it's easy to send a message" --

「讓我們重新設計， 使其易於傳遞訊息」──

that's the goal of chat,

這是對話的目的，

it should be really easy to send a message to someone --

它應該使得傳訊息 變得非常容易──

we change the goal to something deeper and a human value,

我們深化了交談的目的， 並融入了人的價值，

which is: "Let's create the highest possible quality communication

就是：在人與人之間 提供最高品質的交流。

in a relationship between two people.

So we upgraded the goal.

所以我們提高了目標。

Now, do designers actually care about this?

當今的設計者是否真的關心這些？

Do we want to have conversations about what these deeper human goals are?

我們是否要討論這些 更深層的人類目標？

Well, I'll tell you one story.

我要給你們講個故事。

A little over a year ago,

大概一年前，

I got to help organize a meeting

我要去協助組織一場會議，

between some of technology's leading designers and Thich Nhat Hanh.

那是由一些頂尖的科技設計者 和一行禪師參加的會議。

Thich Nhat Hanh is an international spokesperson for mindfulness meditation.

一行禪師是冥想修行的國際代言人。

And it was the most amazing meeting.

那是一次非常精彩的會議，

You have to imagine -- picture a room --

你可以想像有一個房間，

on one side of the room, you have a bunch of tech geeks;

一邊是一群科技奇才；

on the other side of the room,

另一邊，

you have a bunch of long brown robes, shaved heads, Buddhist monks.

是一群穿著棕色長袍， 剃了光頭的僧人。

And the questions were about the deepest human values,

話題是關於人類深層價值的問題，

like what does the future of technology look like

比如未來的科技會是什麼樣子，

when you're designing for the deepest questions

當你的設計涉及到了深刻的問題

and the deepest human values?

以及人類深層的價值時？

And our conversation centered on listening more deeply

我們的話題著重於深入地傾聽

to what those values might be.

那些價值可能是什麼。

He joked in our conversation

他在對話中開玩笑說，

that what if, instead of a spell check,

假如，與其做拼寫檢查，

you had a compassion check,

不如做一個同情心檢查，

meaning, you might highlight a word that might be accidentally abrasive --

意思是，你在聊天時， 在無意中造成了傷害──

perceived as abrasive by someone else.

說者無意，聽者有心。

So does this kind of conversation happen in the real world,

那麼這種對話是否 也在現實中發生，

not just in these design meetings?

而不僅只在那些設計會議中？

Well, the answer is yes,

答案是肯定的，

and one of my favorites is Couchsurfing.

我最喜歡的一個是「沙發衝浪」。

If you didn't know, Couchsurfing is a website

「沙發衝浪」是個網站，

that matches people who are looking for a place to stay

可以提供尋找落腳處的旅人

with a free couch, from someone who's trying to offer it.

和願意免費提供沙發過夜的人 一個媒合的平台。

So, great service --

非常棒的服務──

what would their design goal be?

他們的設計目標是什麼？

What are you designing for if you work at Couchsurfing?

如果你在沙發衝浪工作， 你要設計什麼？

Well, you would think it's to match guests with hosts.

你可能會認為是要媒合旅客和屋主，

Right?

對吧？

That's a pretty good goal.

這是一個很好的目標。

But that would kind of be like our goal with messaging before,

但這很像我們以前發訊息的目標，

where we're just trying to deliver a message.

我們只是想去傳遞訊息。

So what's the deeper, human goal?

那麼更深層的人類目標是什麼？

Well, they set their goal

這個目標就是

as the need to create lasting, positive experiences and relationships

需要在從未見過的人之間 創造持久、積極的經歷和關係。

between people who've never met before.

And the most amazing thing about this was in 2007,

關於這點，在 2007 年 發生了一個非常有趣的事，

they introduced a way to measure this,

他們引入了一種衡量這件事的方式。

which is incredible.

這很不可思議。

I'll tell you how it works.

我告訴你它如何運作。

For every design goal you have,

對於每個設計目標，

you have to have a corresponding measurement

你都要有一個相應的衡量方法，

to know how you're doing --

從而知道你做的怎麼樣──

a way of measuring success.

這是一種衡量成功的方式。

So what they do is,

那麼他們的做法是，

let's say you take two people who meet up,

假設你選取了兩個剛見面的人，

and they take the number of days those two people spent together,

算一下他們在一起的天數，

and then they estimate how many hours were in those days --

然後估計在那些天 他們用了多少個小時──

how many hours did those two people spend together?

即兩個人在一起待了多少個小時？

And then after they spend that time together,

在這之後

they ask both of them:

問他們：

How positive was your experience?

你覺得這段經歷有多好？

Did you have a good experience with this person that you met?

你和你遇見的人 有沒有渡過好的時光？

And they subtract from those positive hours

然後把在網上花費的時間

the amount of time people spent on the website,

從那些美好的時光中減去，

because that's a cost to people's lives.

因為網上的時間 算是一種對於生命的損失。

Why should we value that as success?

為什麼我們認為這是種成功的方法？

And what you were left with

我們把剩下的部分稱為

is something they refer to as "net orchestrated conviviality,"

「精心安排的快樂淨值。」

or, really, just a net "Good Times" created.

或者說是「美妙時光淨值。」

The net hours that would have never existed, had Couchsurfing not existed.

如果沙發衝浪的網站不存在， 那麼這些美妙時光也不會存在。

Can you imagine how inspiring it would be to come to work every day

你能夠想像為它工作 有多麼鼓舞人心？

and measure your success

你的成功，

in the actual net new contribution of hours in people's lives

透過人們現實生活中的 快樂小時數反應出來，

that are positive, that would have never existed

如果你沒有每天專心致志地工作，

if you didn't do what you were about to do at work today?

你就無法達到這種成功。

Can you imagine a whole world that worked this way?

你可以想像如果全世界 都按這個模式運行嗎？

Can you imagine a social network that --

你可以想像一個社會網絡──

let's say you care about cooking,

假如你喜歡烹飪，

and it measured its success in terms of cooking nights organized

這個網絡成功與否， 取決於你烹飪的時間，

and the cooking articles that you were glad you read,

加上你閱讀喜愛的烹飪文章的時間，

and subtracted from that the articles you weren't glad you read

扣除你不喜歡讀的文章，

or the time you spent scrolling that you didn't like?

或者你翻看你不喜歡的 文章時花費的時間。

Imagine a professional social network

想像一個專業的社會網絡，

that, instead of measuring its success in terms of connections created

不是根據它建立的聯繫，

or messages sent,

或是發送訊息來衡量成功，

instead measured its success in terms of the job offers that people got

而是根據人們是否能得到理想的工作，

that they were excited to get.

他們很高興能得到的工作；

And subtracted the amount of time people spent on the website.

然後減去人們 在該網站上花費的時間。

Or imagine dating services,

再比如說──約會服務，

like maybe Tinder or something,

比如 Tinder 之類的，

where instead of measuring the number of swipes left and right people did,

與其像現在他們透過 衡量人們左滑右滑的次數

which is how they measure success today,

去評估是否成功，

instead measured the deep, romantic, fulfilling connections people created.

而是去衡量約會的人 創造的深層、浪漫關係。

Whatever that was for them, by the way.

不管對他們而言 這層關係是什麼都可以。

But can you imagine a whole world that worked this way,

你可以想像整個世界都這樣運轉嗎？

that was helping you spend your time well?

那會讓你更能掌控如何運用時間。

Now to do this you also need a new system,

但是為了實現這個， 你需要一個新系統，

because you're probably thinking,

因為你可能在想

today's Internet economy --

今天的網路經濟──

today's economy in general --

普遍意義上的經濟──

is measured in time spent.

是以花費的時間來衡量。

The more users you have,

你有越多的用戶，

the more usage you have,

你的產品被使用的越多，

the more time people spend,

人們花費的時間就越多。

that's how we measure success.

這就是當下我們如何衡量成功。

But we've solved this problem before.

但是我們之前已經解決過這個問題。

We solved it with organic,

我們用「有機」解決過，

when we said we need to value things a different way.

我們必須用另一種方式衡量事物。

We said this is a different kind of food.

我們說這是另一種食物，

So we can't compare it just based on price;

我們不能只透過價格去比較。

this is a different category of food.

這是另外一個種類的食物。

We solved it with Leed Certification,

我們用 Leed 綠建築認證

where we said this is a different kind of building

去表明這是另一種建築，

that stood for different values of environmental sustainability.

這代表了另外一種價值， 即環境的可持續發展。

What if we had something like that for technology?

如果把這個思想應用到 科技領域會怎樣？

What if we had something whose entire purpose and goal

如果我們把目標設定為 為人類做出新的、有益的貢獻，

was to help create net new positive contributions to human life?

這一切又會怎樣？

And what if we could value it a different way,

如果我們用另一種方​​式去評估，

so it would actually work?

這一切又會怎樣？

Imagine you gave this different premium shelf space on app stores.

設想在蘋果 AppStore 裡， 我們專門為這種產品設立一個類別。

Imagine you had web browsers that helped route you

設想有一個網頁瀏覽器

to these kinds of design products.

導引你到這類產品。

Can you imagine how exciting it would be to live and create that world?

你能想像建立及住在 這樣的世界有多令人激動嗎？

We can create this world today.

我們現在就可以建立這樣的世界。

Company leaders, all you have to do --

公司領袖，你們需要做的就是──

only you can prioritize a new metric,

只有你們可以優先考慮 一個新的指標，

which is your metric for net positive contribution to human life.

一個對人類有淨益貢獻的指標，

And have an honest conversation about that.

並誠實與他人談論這個。

Maybe you're not doing so well to start with,

或許你剛開始會做的不太好，

but let's start that conversation.

但是開始這種對話是有必要的。

Designers, you can redefine success; you can redefine design.

設計者，你可以重新定義成功； 你可以重新定義設計。

Arguably, you have more power than many people in your organization

可以說，你比公司其他人 有更大的能力

to create the choices that all of us live by.

去做這個可以影響 我們生活品質的選擇。

Maybe like in medicine,

或許就像醫療行業，

where we have a Hippocratic oath

我們有希波克拉底誓言，

to recognize the responsibility and this higher value

做為治療時所遵行的 責任和最高價值觀。

that we have to treat patients.

What if designers had something like that,

如果設計者也有類似的誓言，

in terms of this new kind of design?

來做新設計的價值準則， 那又會怎樣？

And users, for all of us --

我們這些使用者，

we can demand technology that works this way.

我們可以要求科技領域 也採用這個做法。

Now it may seem hard,

現在這可能很難做到，

but McDonald's didn't have salads until the consumer demand was there.

但直到客戶要求沙拉， 麥當勞才開始賣沙拉。

Walmart didn't have organic food until the consumer demand was there.

直到客戶要求有機食物， 沃爾瑪才開始提供有機產品。

We have to demand this new kind of technology.

我們需要要求這個新型科技。

And we can do that.

我們可以做到。

And doing that

透過這樣做，

would amount to shifting from a world that's driven and run

可以使這個完全以消耗時間

entirely on time spent,

來運轉的世界，

to world that's driven by time well spent.

轉向一個更有效運用時間的世界。

I want to live in this world,

我想活在這樣的世界，

and I want this conversation to happen.

我也想開始這個討論。

Let's start that conversation now.

讓我們現在就開始吧。

Thank you.

謝謝。

(Applause)

（掌聲）