Sebastian Deterding: What your designs say about you

譯者: Wang-Ju Tsai 審譯者: Yuguo Zhang

We are today talking about moral persuasion:

今天我們要來談談道德勸説

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

當我們試著用科技和設計

來改變人們的行爲時

by using technology and using design?

這之間道德的界限在哪裏？

And I don't know what you expect,

我不知道你們的期待是什麽

but when I was thinking about that issue,

但當我在想這個問題時

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

我很早就理解到

我是沒有答案的

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

我無法告訴你什麽是道德或不道德

because we're living in a pluralist society.

因爲我們活在一個多元化的社會

My values can be radically different from your values,

我和你的價值觀

可能極端地不同

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

也就是說我判斷道德的標準

might not necessarily be what you consider moral or immoral.

和你的標準不見得一樣

不過我知道 我可以給你的

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

就是我背後這個人

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

Socrates.

蘇格拉底

It is questions.

所告訴這世界的 -- 那就是問題

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

我想給你們

像開頭的問題一樣

is give you, like that initial question,

一連串的問題

a set of questions to figure out for yourselves,

讓我們一起來探討

layer by layer, like peeling an onion,

像剝洋蔥一樣

一層又一層的剝掉

最後達到你價值信仰的核心

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

也就是道德和不道德的分界

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

我要提出幾個科技上的例子

説明人們如何用遊戲的元素

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

來使其他人做事

所以我要給你的第一個

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

I would like to give you:

十分簡單明顯的問題：

What are your intentions if you are designing something?

當你在設計一樣東西時 你最初的用意是什麽？

And obviously, intentions are not the only thing,

很明顯地 光有用意不能解釋一切

這裡有另外一個例子

so here is another example for one of these applications.

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

現在有所謂的環保儀表板

這些裝在車上的儀表板

dashboards built into cars --

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

會激發你去想怎樣開車才更省油

This here is Nissan's MyLeaf,

像這個是Nissan的MyLeaf

where your driving behavior is compared with the driving behavior

在這上面你可以看到

你和他人的駕駛方式的比較

of other people,

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

所以你可以和其他人比賽

看誰油用得最少

結果發現這個儀表板十分的厲害

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

厲害到可以讓人們爲了省油

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

反而去採取不安全的駕駛行爲

like not stopping at a red light,

像闖紅燈等等的

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

因爲紅燈時你得停下來再重新啓動

這會花費更多的汽油，不是嗎？

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

So despite this being a very well-intended application,

所以，雖然這個程式的用意是好的

obviously there was a side effect of that.

但大家都看得出來這有個副作用

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

這裡還有個有關副作用的例子

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

Commendable （網站名）

在這個網站上爸爸媽媽可以給予一些小圖章

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

來獎賞他們的小孩的行爲

像聽話綁鞋帶之類的

like tying their shoes.

And at first that sounds very nice,

一開始這主意聼起來不錯

very benign, well-intended.

十分聰明也用意良好

但結果你如果去看人類心理的研究

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

caring about outcomes,

像這樣在意結果

caring about public recognition,

在意被公衆認可

caring about these kinds of public tokens of recognition

和這些代表認可的實體符號

對于長期的心理健康

is not necessarily very helpful

for your long-term psychological well-being.

並沒有什麼幫助

It's better if you care about learning something.

但如果你自發地去學習

It's better when you care about yourself

自己來關心自己

than how you appear in front of other people.

而不是關心自己呈現的外像

才會有更積極的作用

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

所以這種激勵他人的工具在其本質上

有長期的副作用

has a long-term side effect,

in that every time we use a technology

每一次當我們使用

that uses something like public recognition or status,

這種牽涉到公共認可或地位的科技時

we're actually positively endorsing this

我們其實也就正向地認可說

as a good and normal thing to care about --

這些是該去注意的好事情

that way, possibly having a detrimental effect

這麽一來在長期地來説

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

會對我們心理的狀態有負面的影響

So that's a second, very obvious question:

第二個很明顯的問題是

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

你的所作所爲有什麽影響？

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

你使用一個裝置帶來的影響

譬如說減少耗油

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

或是透過使用該裝置

to get people to do things --

來使別人做事而帶來的效果

public recognition?

也就是公共認可

Now is that all -- intention, effect?

這是用意還是影響？

Well, there are some technologies which obviously combine both.

事實上有些科技

結合了兩者

Both good long-term and short-term effects

長期和短期的正面影響

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

結合了正面的用意 像Fred Stutzman's Freedom,

where the whole point of that application is --

這個程式的用處在於

我們不是常常被

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

電話和其他人的請求疲勞轟炸嗎

with this device,

有了這個裝置你就可以

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

把網路和你的個人電腦関掉一段時間

for a pre-set amount of time,

to actually get some work done.

讓你可以專心完成一些事

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

我們大部分的人會同意

這個的用意是好的

and also has good consequences.

而產生的結果也是好的

用Michel Foucault （法國現代哲學家）的話來説

In the words of Michel Foucault,

it is a "technology of the self."

“那是個自我的科技”

It is a technology that empowers the individual

那是個能激勵個人

to determine its own life course,

來決定自己的生活路綫

to shape itself.

和塑造自己

But the problem is, as Foucault points out,

但是問題在於

如同 Foucault 所指出的

that every technology of the self

任何一個自我的科技

has a technology of domination as its flip side.

在其背後都有一支配的科技

As you see in today's modern liberal democracies,

如你當今在現代自由的民主裏所看到的

社會國家

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

不止讓我們決定自己塑造自己

to shape our self,

it also demands it of us.

同時也要求我們這麽做

要求我們要使自己盡善盡美

It demands that we optimize ourselves,

that we control ourselves,

要求我們要控制我們自己

要求我們要不斷地自我管理

that we self-manage continuously,

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

因爲這是讓自由社會能運行的

唯一方法

These technologies want us to stay in the game

這些科技要我們留在

that society has devised for us.

社會為我們設計的遊戲裏

They want us to fit in even better.

我們被要求必須更完美地融入

They want us to optimize ourselves to fit in.

我們必須使自己完美來融入

我不是在說這是件壞事

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

我只是覺得這個例子

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

為我們指出了一般性的領悟

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

也就是不管什麽設計或是科技

even something we consider as well-intended

或是我們覺得用意和影響都好的東西

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

像 Stutzman's Freedom

comes with certain values embedded in it.

都會有一些内定的價值

And we can question these values.

我們可以對這些價值存疑

我們可以問：不斷地要求我們自己

We can question: Is it a good thing

做到盡善盡美來進一步融入社會

that all of us continuously self-optimize ourselves

to fit better into that society?

這是一件好事嗎？

Or to give you another example:

再擧另一個例子

What about a piece of persuasive technology

例如一個勸説穆斯林婦女

戴頭巾的科技

that convinces Muslim women to wear their headscarves?

Is that a good or a bad technology

就其用意和影響來説

這是好還是壞的科技？

in its intentions or in its effects?

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

這個其實是決定在

你做出這樣的判斷時

to make these kinds of judgments.

基於什麽樣的價值？

所以第三個問題是

So that's a third question:

What values do you use to judge?

你作判斷時基於的價值是什麽？

And speaking of values:

談到價值

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

我注意到在網路上討論道德勸説時

and when I'm talking with people,

或我和人們談話時

more often than not, there is a weird bias.

常常會有個奇怪的偏差

這個偏差就是

And that bias is that we're asking:

Is this or that "still" ethical?

我們會問這還是符合道德的嗎？

Is it "still" permissible?

這是否還是被允許的？

We're asking things like:

我們會問 譬如說

Oxfam（慈善組織）的捐款單上

Is this Oxfam donation form,

where the regular monthly donation is the preset default,

預設的捐款頻率是設為每個月

and people, maybe without intending it,

一般人在不注意的情況下

are encouraged or nudged into giving a regular donation

會被引導至每月定期捐款

而不是一次性捐款

instead of a one-time donation,

is that "still' permissible?

這是可允許的嗎？

這是道德的嗎？

Is it "still" ethical?

We're fishing at the low end.

我們舉出的是極端的例子

但事實上這個問題

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

“這還道德嗎？”

只是另一個看道德的方式

is just one way of looking at ethics.

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

因爲如果你看看西方文化裏

道德的起源

你會看到

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

道德也會有很不同的面貌

For Aristotle, ethics was not about the question,

對亞裏士多德而言

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

道德不單只是“是或不是”的問題

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

道德還是如何活得好

他用了arete這個字

And he put that in the word "arête,"

在古希臘文裏被翻譯成道德

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

但事實上應該解釋為優秀

But really, it means "excellence."

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

意思是將你的身為人類的才能

發揮到極致

And that is an idea that, I think,

而在最近的一篇散文裏

Paul Richard Buchanan很適切地提到

Paul Richard Buchanan put nicely in a recent essay,

where he said, "Products are vivid arguments

產品是用來説明我們

about how we should live our lives."

該如何生活的生動的論點

我們的設計不管是否使用道德的論點來勸説

Our designs are not ethical or unethical

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

這都無關道德

They have a moral component

在它們展現給我們的方式裏

在它們對好的生活方式的洞察力和啓發裏

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

它們都有一個道德的部分

that they present to us.

And if you look into the designed environment around us

而且如果你透過這樣的鏡頭

with that kind of lens,

來檢視我們所設計的環境

asking, "What is the vision of the good life

並問道“我們的產品和設計要呈現給我們的

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

好的生活的觀點是什麽？“

then you often get the shivers,

那你會不寒而慄

because of how little we expect of each other,

因爲你會發現我們對互相的期待

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

和對我們的生活及希望的好生活的期待

是如此的少

and what the good life looks like.

那麽就提到第四個問題

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

What vision of the good life do your designs convey?

你的設計要帶來的

對好生活的洞察力是什麽？

And speaking of design,

談到設計

you'll notice that I already broadened the discussion,

你會發現我已經將討論範圍擴大了

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

因爲我們談得不止是勸服的科技

那還可以是這世上任何的設計

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

I don't know whether you know

我不曉得你知不知道

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

偉大的溝通學大師 Paul Watzlawick

早在60年代就提出說

我們無法不溝通

made the argument that we cannot not communicate.

即使我們選擇沉默

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

即便沉默，我們還是用沉默在溝通

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

And in the same way that we cannot not communicate,

如果我們不能不溝通的話，同理可知

我們就無法不勸說

we cannot not persuade:

whatever we do or refrain from doing,

不管我們做一件事或是不做一件事

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

在這世上

所有我們的設計

都帶有勸説的一部分

has a persuasive component.

It tries to affect people.

要來試著影響人們

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

它將一定的美好生活的觀點

呈現在我們面前

正如 Peter-Paul Verbeek

which is what Peter-Paul Verbeek,

the Dutch philosopher of technology, says.

荷蘭的科技哲學家所言

身為設計師不管我們有意或無意

No matter whether we as designers intend it or not,

we materialize morality.

我們將道德實體化

We make certain things harder and easier to do.

我們將一些事變得更難也更容易

We organize the existence of people.

我們組織人們的生存

We put a certain vision

透過我們設計出來的東西

of what good or bad or normal or usual is

我們將一些判定好壞異常的觀點

in front of people,

by everything we put out there in the world.

擺在人們的眼前

就連一組學校的座椅這麽平常的東西

Even something as innocuous as a set of school chairs

is a persuasive technology,

也是一種勸説的科技

因爲這展現了也實體化了

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

一定的美好生活的觀點

在這個美好生活裏的教學聽課

a good life in which teaching and learning and listening

is about one person teaching, the others listening;

定義為是一個人教 一群人聼

學要坐著學

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

是為你自己而學

in which you learn for yourself;

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

而不該去改變規則

because the chairs are fixed to the ground.

因爲椅子是固定在地上

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

即使是一張無辜的名家設計的椅子

like this one by Arne Jacobsen,

像這張 Arne Jacobsen 的椅子

is a persuasive technology,

也是勸説的科技

因爲它傳遞了美好生活的觀點

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

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

一個美好的生活

根據設計師所說的

在美好生活裏

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

物品就像這張椅子永續或非永續地被生産

as this chair.

Workers are treated as well or as badly

工人就像生産這張椅子的工人一樣

as the workers were treated that built that chair."

很好或不好地被對待

The good life is a life where design is important

在美好生活裏設計是重要的

因爲有人花了時間和金錢

because somebody obviously took the time and spent the money

投注在那樣的好的設計的椅子

for that kind of well-designed chair;

where tradition is important,

美好生活裏傳統是重要的

因爲這是傳統經典

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

而且有人重視這件事

美好生活裏該有明顯的消費

and where there is something as conspicuous consumption,

在美好生活裏將一大筆錢

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

花在這樣的椅子上讓別人知道你的社會地位

on such a chair,

這是正常的是可以的

to signal to other people what your social status is.

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

所以我今天想要帶給你的

I wanted to lead you through today;

就是這一類的問題

像：你在設計東西時

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

你的出發點用意是什麽？

when you're designing something?

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

你的設計有意和無意的效果是什麽？

而你用來判定這些的價值觀

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

又是什麽？

你的設計所展現的

What are the virtues, the aspirations

that you're actually expressing in that?

優點和啓發是什麽？

And how does that apply,

這些又如何被應用

not just to persuasive technology,

在你所設計的一切

but to everything you design?

而不只是勸説科技上？

Do we stop there?

問題就此打住了嗎？

I don't think so.

我並不如此認爲

I think that all of these things are eventually informed

這一切的一切都是由

by the core of all of this,

其核心所傳遞出來的

and this is nothing but life itself.

那就是生活

Why, when the question of what the good life is

當我們問到什麽是美好生活

informs everything that we design,

這可從我們設計的一切事物看出

should we stop at design and not ask ourselves:

但爲什麽我們就只看到設計

How does it apply to our own life?

而不進一步問這設計如何能應用在我們的生活上？

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

為什麽燈或屋子是一個藝術品

but not our life?"

而我們的生活不是？

as Michel Foucault puts it.

如同 Michel Foucault 曾經這麽說過

Just to give you a practical example of Buster Benson.

這裡我給你一個 Buster Benson 的具體例子

This is Buster setting up a pull-up machine

他在他的新的 Habit 實驗室

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

設立一個引體向上的機器

他們試著為人們來研發其他像

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

Health Month 的應用程式

for people.

他爲什麽要建這樣的機器？

And why is he building a thing like this?

Well, here is the set of axioms

這裡是一組Buster建立的

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

Habit Lab 工作人員的座右銘

這是一些他們希望

on how they wanted to work together as a team

when they're building these applications --

當他們在一起工作時

a set of moral principles they set themselves

一起設計這些應用程式時

該一起遵守的道德規範

for working together --

one of them being,

這些座右銘其中一條是

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

“我們照顧自己的健康和管理自己的爆肝”

因爲最終地來説

Because ultimately, how can you ask yourselves

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

如果你不先去問問自己

你自己想要的美好生活的

you want to convey and create with your designs

觀點是什麽

without asking the question:

你如何能知道

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

你的設計想要傳遞和創造的

美好生活的觀點是什麽？

就此結束演講 謝謝大家

And with that,

I thank you.

(Applause)

（掌聲）