“It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they’ve been fooled.”?—?Unknown.

“愚弄人比說服人們被愚弄了更容易”——未名

I’m an expert on how technology hijacks our psychological vulnerabilities. That’s why I spent the last three years as a Design Ethicist at Google caring about how to design things in a way that defends a billion people’s minds from getting hijacked.

我是科技如何操縱我們脆弱心理方面的專家涛舍，那也就是為什么我花了近三年的時間纳决，作為Google的一個設(shè)計倫理學(xué)家，致力于怎么保護十億用戶的心理，不被操控的方式去設(shè)計事物月腋。

When using technology, we often focus optimistically on all the things it does for us. But I want to show you where it might do the opposite.

當(dāng)使用科技時妄迁，我們常常正面地關(guān)注它能為我們做的事情。但是以下我想說明的是它也會有負(fù)面的地方兑障。

Where does technology exploit our minds’ weaknesses?

科技利用了哪些我們的心理脆弱點侄非？

I learned to think this way when I was a magician. Magicians start by looking for blind spots, edges, vulnerabilities and limits of people’s perception, so they can influence what people do without them even realizing it. Once you know how to push people’s buttons, you can play them like a piano.That’s me performing sleight of hand magic at my mother’s birthday party。

當(dāng)我是一個魔術(shù)師的時候流译，我研究過這個問題逞怨。魔術(shù)師從尋找人的盲點、邊緣福澡、漏洞和人們感知的限制開始叠赦，所以他們可以影響人們做些他們都意識到的事情。一旦你知道如何按下人們的開關(guān)革砸，你就可以像彈鋼琴一樣玩弄他們除秀。那是我在我媽的生日聚會上表演手的魔術(shù)伎倆。

And this is exactly what product designers do to your mind. They play your psychological vulnerabilities (consciously and unconsciously) against you in the race to grab your attention.

這也正是產(chǎn)品設(shè)計師對你大腦所做的事情算利。他們（有意識的和下意識的）操控你的心理弱點册踩，對抗你控制自己注意力的幾率。

I want to show you how they do it.

我給你解釋下效拭，他們是如何做的暂吉。

Hijack #1: If You Control the Menu, You Control the Choices

操控#1：控制了菜單胖秒，則控制了選擇

Western Culture is built around ideals of individual choice and freedom. Millions of us fiercely defend our right to make “free” choices, while we ignore how those choices are manipulated upstream by menus we didn’t choose in the first place.

西方文化被建立在個人選擇和自由的理想上。成千上百萬的我們激烈地保護我們做自由選擇的權(quán)利慕的，然而我們忽略了這些菜單選項阎肝，是如何逆流而上的被擺弄成我們并沒有選在首要的位置上。

This is exactly what magicians do. They give people the illusion of free choice while architecting the menu so that they win, no matter what you choose. I can’t emphasize enough how deep this insight is.

這恰恰就是魔術(shù)師所做的肮街。當(dāng)架構(gòu)設(shè)計菜單的時候风题，他們給人們自由選擇的錯覺，所以不管你怎么選擇他們都贏了低散，我沒辦法完全的強調(diào)這個洞察力有多么深奧俯邓。

When people are given a menu of choices, they rarely ask:

“what’s not on the menu?”

“why am I being given these options and not others?”

“do I know the menu provider’s goals?”

“is this menu empowering for my original need, or are the choices actually a distraction?” (e.g. an overwhelmingly array of toothpastes)

當(dāng)給人們一個選擇菜單時，他們很少問及：

“什么沒在菜單上熔号？”

“為什么我被給到這些選項而不是其他的稽鞭？”

“我知道菜單提供者的意圖么？”

“這個菜單是來自我最初的需求嗎引镊？或者實際上是干擾項朦蕴？”（例圖：一種壓倒性的牙膏排放）

How empowering is this menu of choices for the need, “I ran out of toothpaste”?

如何賦予這個選擇菜單以需求，“我缺牙膏嗎弟头？”

For example, imagine you’re out with friends on a Tuesday night and want to keep the conversation going. You open Yelp to find nearby recommendations and see a list of bars. The group turns into a huddle of faces staring down at their phones comparing bars.They scrutinize the photos of each, comparing cocktail drinks. Is this menu still relevant to the original desire of the group?

例如吩抓，想象你在周二晚上和朋友一塊在外面，并且想繼續(xù)聊聊天赴恨。你打開了Yelp來查找附近推薦的地方疹娶，然后你看到一個酒吧的列表。一群人變成了一堆盯著手機對比酒吧的臉伦连。他們仔細(xì)檢查每一張照片雨饺，對比著雞尾酒。這個菜單仍然和最初這群人的需求相匹配嗎惑淳？

It’s not that bars aren’t a good choice, it’s that Yelp substituted the group’s original question (“where can we go to keep talking?”) with a different question (“what’s a bar with good photos of cocktails?”) all by shaping the menu.

并不是說這個酒吧就不是一個好的選項额港，而是Yelp把這伙人最初的問題（“我們可以去哪繼續(xù)聊天？”）替換成了一個不一樣的問題（“哪個酒吧有不錯的雞尾酒照片歧焦？”）這全都是通過調(diào)整菜單項移斩。

Moreover, the group falls for the illusion that Yelp’s menu represents a complete set of choices for where to go. While looking down at their phones, they don’t see the park across the street with a band playing live music. They miss the pop-up gallery on the other side of the street serving crepes and coffee. Neither of those show up on Yelp’s menu.

此外，這伙人陷入了Yelp的菜單就代表了能去的地方的全部選項的錯覺绢馍。當(dāng)他們低頭看手機的時候向瓷，他們沒有想到，那個穿過街道有個正演奏音樂的公園舰涌。他們錯失了在街道另外一邊的那個出現(xiàn)的畫廊在賣可麗餅和咖啡猖任。他們都沒有出現(xiàn)在Yelp的菜單上。

Yelp subtly reframes the group’s need “where can we go to keep talking?” in terms of photos of cocktails served.

就提供雞尾酒照片而言舵稠，Yelp巧妙地重構(gòu)了這伙人的需求“我們可以去哪繼續(xù)聊天？”。

The more choices technology gives us in nearly every domain of our lives (information, events, places to go, friends, dating, jobs)?—the more we assume that our phone is always the most empowering and useful menu to pick from. Is it?

科技帶給我們幾乎涵蓋生活方方面面的選擇越多（信息哺徊、事件室琢、地點、朋友落追、約會盈滴、工作），我們便越是臆斷我們的手機是最自主的和有用的菜單轿钠，可以從中做選擇巢钓，不是嗎？

The “most empowering” menu is different than the menu that has the most choices.But when we blindly surrender to the menus we’re given, it’s easy to lose track of the difference:

“Who’s free tonight to hang out?” becomes a menu of most recent people who texted us(who we could ping).

“What’s happening in the world?” becomes a menu of news feed stories.

“Who’s single to go on a date?” becomes a menu of faces to swipe on Tinder (instead of local events with friends, or urban adventures nearby).

“I have to respond to this email.” becomes a menu of keys to type a response(instead of empowering ways to communicate with a person).

這個“最自主”的菜單與有最多選擇的菜單是不同的疗垛。但當(dāng)我們盲目投降于被給到的菜單的時候症汹，失去尋找不同是很容易的。

“誰今晚上能出來玩贷腕？” 變成了那個近來給我們發(fā)消息的人的菜單（是誰我們可以想象）背镇。

“最近發(fā)生了什么？” 變成了最新的推送報道的菜單泽裳。

“誰是單身可以參加約會瞒斩？” 變成了一個在Tinder上可以滑動的臉的菜單（而不是與朋友的當(dāng)?shù)鼗顒樱蛘吒浇鞘械奶诫U）涮总。

“我必須回復(fù)這封電子郵件胸囱。” 變成了一個鍵入菜單瀑梗，鍵入回復(fù)（而不是自主方式來跟人交流）

All user interfaces are menus. What if your email client gave you empowering choices of ways to respond, instead of “what message do you want to type back?” (Design by Tristan Harris)

所有的用戶界面是菜單烹笔。如果你的電子郵箱客戶端授予你選擇回復(fù)的方式，而不是“你想回復(fù)什么信息夺克？”箕宙，該會怎樣？（設(shè)計出自Tristan Harris）

When we wake up in the morning and turn our phone over to see a list of notifications?—?it frames the experience of “waking up in the morning” around a menu of “all the things I’ve missed since yesterday.” (for more examples, seeJoe Edelman’s Empowering Design talk)

當(dāng)我們早上醒來铺纽，翻開我們的手機來看消息列表-它構(gòu)成“早上醒來”的體驗柬帕，圍繞著我從昨天錯過的“所有事情”的菜單。（更多的例子狡门，請查看Joe Edelman的授權(quán)設(shè)計的演講）

A list of notifications when we wake up in the morning?—?how empowering is this menu of choices when we wake up? Does it reflect what we care about? (fromJoe Edelman’s Empowering Design Talk)

當(dāng)我們早上醒來的通知列表- 這個列表的選擇項是怎樣授權(quán)的陷寝？它體現(xiàn)了我們關(guān)心什么嗎？（Joe Edelman的授權(quán)設(shè)計的演講）

By shaping the menus we pick from, technology hijacks the way we perceive our choices and replaces them with new ones. But the closer we pay attention to the options we’re given, the more we’ll notice when they don’t actually align with our true needs.

通過優(yōu)化我們挑選的菜單其馏，科技操控我們感知做出選擇的方式凤跑，并把他們替換成新的選項。但是我們越是將注意力放到給到我們的選項上叛复，當(dāng)沒有真正對準(zhǔn)我們的需求的時候仔引，我們會越容易注意到扔仓。

Hijack #2: Put a Slot Machine In a Billion Pockets

操控#2：在十億人的口袋中放上老虎機

If you’re an app, how do you keep people hooked? Turn yourself into a slot machine.

如果你是一個應(yīng)用程序, 你怎么保持用戶被吸引，把你自己變成一臺老虎機咖耘。

The average person checks their phone 150 times a day. Why do we do this? Are we making 150 conscious choices?

用戶平均一天檢查他們的手機150次翘簇。為什么我們要這么做？我們在做150次有意識的選擇嗎儿倒？

How often do you check your email per day?

你每天檢查你的郵箱的頻率如何版保？

One major reason why is the #1 psychological ingredient in slot machines:intermittent variable rewards.

為什么#1的心理成分在老虎機里主要的原因是：間歇變量獎勵

If you want to maximize addictiveness, all tech designers need to do is link a user’s action (like pulling a lever) with a variable reward. You pull a lever and immediately receive either an enticing reward (a match, a prize!) or nothing. Addictiveness is maximized when the rate of reward is most variable.

如果你想最大化成癮性，設(shè)計師該做的所有的事情就是夫否，連接用戶的一個行為（像拉下手柄）到某種變量獎勵彻犁。你拉下一個手柄，立即會收到誘人的獎勵（一個比賽凰慈，一個獎勵）或是什么都沒有汞幢。當(dāng)獎勵的概率總是變量時，成癮性達(dá)到最大化溉瓶。

Does this effect really work on people? Yes. Slot machines make more money in the United States than baseball, movies, and theme parks combined. Relative to other kinds of gambling, people get ‘problematically involved’ with slot machines3–4x faster according to NYU professor Natasha Dow Schull, author of Addiction by Design.

這個效應(yīng)真的在人們身上起作用嗎急鳄？是的。在美國老虎機賺的錢比棒球堰酿、電影疾宏、主題公園的總和都要多。相對于其他種類的賭博触创，人“成問題地卷入”老虎機的3-4x faster坎藐。依據(jù) 紐約大學(xué)教授 Natasha Dow Schull《設(shè)計成癮》的作者.

But here’s the unfortunate truth?—?several billion people have a slot machine their pocket:

When we pull our phone out of our pocket, we’re?playing a slot machine?to see what notifications we got.

When we pull to refresh our email, we’re?playing a slot machine?to see what new email we got.

When we swipe down our finger to scroll the Instagram feed, we’re?playing a slot machine?to see what photo comes next.

When we swipe faces left/right on dating apps like Tinder, we’re?playing a slot machine?to see if we got a match.

When we tap the # of red notifications, we’re?playing a slot machine?to what’s underneath.

但是這里有個不幸的真理——幾十億的人類都有一臺老虎機在他們口袋里：

當(dāng)我們從口袋掏出手機，我就在玩老虎機來看看我們收到了什么通知哼绑。

當(dāng)我們刷新電子郵箱的時候岩馍，我就在玩老虎機來看看我們收到了什么新郵件。

當(dāng)我們滑下我們的手指滾動Instagram推送的時候抖韩，我就在玩老虎機來看看將有什么照片出現(xiàn)蛀恩。

當(dāng)我們在類似Tinder的交友應(yīng)用里左右滑動面部的時候，我就在玩老虎機來看我們是否得到了匹配茂浮。

當(dāng)我們點擊表示通知的紅色標(biāo)識的時候双谆，我就在玩老虎機來看下面是什么。

Apps and websites sprinkle intermittent variable rewards all over their products because it’s good for business.

應(yīng)用和網(wǎng)站向他們的產(chǎn)品撒滿了即時變量獎勵席揽，因為這利于生意顽馋。

But in other cases, slot machines emerge by accident. For example, there is no malicious corporation behind all of email who consciously chose to make it a slot machine. No one profits when millions check their email and nothing’s there. Neither did Apple and Google’s designers want phones to work like slot machines. It emerged by accident.

但其他的案例中老虎機是意外出現(xiàn)的。例如幌羞，有一個并無惡意的公司寸谜，把它后面的郵件有意地變成了老虎機。當(dāng)上百萬的人查看他們的郵件時属桦，什么都沒有熊痴，并且沒人因此獲利他爸。Apple和Google的設(shè)計師都不想圖片工具像老虎機一樣。它是意外的出現(xiàn)果善。

But now companies like Apple and Google have a responsibility to reduce these effects by converting intermittent variable rewards into less addictive, more predictable ones with better design. For example, they could empower people to set predictable times during the day or week for when they want to check “slot machine” apps, and correspondingly adjust when new messages are delivered to align with those times.

但是現(xiàn)在像Apple Google這樣的公司有責(zé)任來減少這些效應(yīng)讲逛。通過把即時變量獎勵轉(zhuǎn)變成不上癮的，可預(yù)測的更好的設(shè)計岭埠。例如，他們可以授權(quán)人們?yōu)橄氩榭此麄兊睦匣C應(yīng)用而設(shè)定一天中或一周中可預(yù)測的時間蔚鸥。并且相應(yīng)的調(diào)整惜论，當(dāng)有新消息推送的時候?qū)?zhǔn)這些時間。

Hijack #3: Fear of Missing Something Important (FOMSI)

操控#3 害怕失去重要的東西

Another way apps and websites hijack people’s minds is by inducing a “1% chance you could be missing something important.”

另外一個軟件應(yīng)用和網(wǎng)站用來操控人們的方法是止喷，通過減少"1%可能性會錯失的某些重要的事馆类。"

If I convince you that I’m a channel for important information, messages, friendships, or potential sexual opportunities?—?it will be hard for you to turn me off, unsubscribe, or remove your account?—?because (aha, I win) you might miss something important:

This keeps us subscribed to newsletters even after they haven’t delivered recent benefits (“what if I miss a future announcement?”)

This keeps us “friended” to people with whom we haven’t spoke in ages (“what if I miss something important from them?”)

This keeps us swiping faces on dating apps, even when we haven’t even met up with anyone in a while (“what if I miss that?one hot match?who likes me?”)

This keeps us using social media (“what if I miss that important news story or fall behind what my friends are talking about?”)

如果我說服了你，我（應(yīng)用或網(wǎng)站）是一個為了重要的信息弹谁，消息乾巧，朋友，或潛在兩性機會的頻道预愤。對你來說很難將我（應(yīng)用或網(wǎng)站）關(guān)閉沟于，取消訂閱，或撤下賬戶植康。應(yīng)為你可能會錯失某些重要的事情（哈哈旷太，我贏了）。

這讓我們保持訂閱通訊销睁，即使他們沒有提供最近的好處供璧。（“如果我錯失了將來的通知怎么辦？”）

這讓我們保持成為某些好幾年沒說過話的人的好友冻记。（“如果我從他們那錯失了重要的事怎么辦睡毒？”）

這讓我們持續(xù)的滑動交友軟件上面的頭像。即使我們有一陣子沒有和某人見過面了冗栗。（“如果我錯失那也喜歡我的辣妹怎么辦演顾？”）

這讓我們持續(xù)的使用社會性媒體（“如果我錯失了那個重要的新聞，或趕不上朋友們正在討論的事怎么辦贞瞒？”）

But if we zoom into that fear, we’ll discover that it’s unbounded: we’ll always miss something important at any point when we stop using something.

There are magic moments on Facebook we’ll miss by not using it for the 6th hour (e.g. an old friend who’s visiting town?right now).

There are magic moments we’ll miss on Tinder (e.g. our dream romantic partner) by not swiping our 700th match.

There are emergency phone calls we’ll miss if we’re not connected 24/7.

但當(dāng)我們放大這種恐懼偶房，我們會發(fā)現(xiàn)它是無界的：我們總會在停止使用某物時錯失某些重要的事情。

總有一些奇妙的瞬間军浆，在不用Facebook的第6個鐘頭時棕洋，我們會錯失。（例如乒融，老朋友現(xiàn)在正在市里）掰盘。

總有一些在Tinder上的奇妙時刻摄悯，我們會錯失。

總有一些緊急電話愧捕，我們會錯失奢驯，如果我們不是24/7的可被聯(lián)系到。

But living moment to moment with the fear of missing something isn’t how we’re built to live.

但是次绘，伴隨著害怕隨時都會錯失某些一些不是為了生活而存在的事情瘪阁。

And it’s amazing how quickly, once we let go of that fear, we wake up from the illusion. When we unplug for more than a day, unsubscribe from those notifications, or go to Camp Grounded—?the concerns we thought we’d have don’t actually happen.

一旦我們放開那種恐懼，我們就從噩夢中醒來邮偎。這是多么神奇且迅速地啊管跺。當(dāng)我們一天沒有充電，取消那些通知提醒禾进，或者去陸地露營—— 那些顧慮我們原本認(rèn)為我們不會出現(xiàn)豁跑。

We don’t miss what we don’t see.

我們不會失去我們看不見的東西。

The thought, “what if I miss something important?” is generated in advance of unplugging, unsubscribing, or turning off—?not after. Imagine if tech companies recognized that, and helped us proactively tune our relationships with friends and businesses in terms of what we define as “time well spent” for our lives, instead of in terms of what we might miss.

這種想法泻云，“如果我錯失了重要的事情會怎樣艇拍？”在沒有充電、取消訂閱宠纯，或者關(guān)機之前就產(chǎn)生了卸夕，而不是在之后。想象一下科技公司認(rèn)識到了婆瓜，并且依據(jù)我們所定義的為生活“好好利用時間”主動地幫助我們娇哆，協(xié)調(diào)我們朋友和商業(yè)的關(guān)系。而不是所謂的我們會錯失什么勃救。

Hijack #4: Social Approval

操控#4 社會認(rèn)同

one of the most persuasive things a human being can receive.

是人類可以接受的最有說服力的事情之一碍讨。

We’re all vulnerable to social approval. The need to belong, to be approved or appreciated by our peers is among the highest human motivations. But now our social approval is in the hands of tech companies.

對于社會認(rèn)同，我們都是脆弱的蒙秒。歸屬及被我們的同伴所接受或贊賞的需求勃黍，是最高的人類意志。但是現(xiàn)在晕讲，我們的社會認(rèn)同感在科技公司手中覆获。

When I get tagged by my friend Marc, I imagine him making a conscious choice to tag me. But I don’t see how a company like Facebook orchestrated his doing that in the first place.

當(dāng)我被被我的朋友馬克標(biāo)記，我想他做了一個清醒的選擇來標(biāo)記我瓢省。但我沒有認(rèn)識到弄息，F(xiàn)acebook這類的公司是多么精心的安排在首要的位置上讓他做了標(biāo)記。

Facebook, Instagram or SnapChat can manipulate how often people get tagged in photos by automatically suggesting all the faces people should tag (e.g. by showing a box with a 1-click confirmation, “Tag Tristan in this photo?”).

Facebook, Instagram, 或者SnapChat可以通過自動地建議所有面孔的人們應(yīng)該去標(biāo)記勤婚，而控制什么頻率人們會在圖片上被標(biāo)記摹量。

So when Marc tags me, he’s actually responding to Facebook’s suggestion,not making an independent choice. But through design choices like this, Facebook controls the multiplier for how often millions of people experience their social approval on the line.

因此，當(dāng)馬克標(biāo)記我的時候，他事實上是回應(yīng)了Facebook的建議缨称，而不是做了個獨立的選擇凝果。但是通過了這樣的設(shè)計選擇俐巴，F(xiàn)acebook掌握了對什么頻率下成百萬的人們在線經(jīng)歷他們的社會認(rèn)同的倍增器讲坎。

Facebook uses automatic suggestions like this to get people to tag more people, creating more social externalities and interruptions.

Facebook利用這類似這樣的自動建議兔魂，讓人們?nèi)?biāo)記更多的人竞端，創(chuàng)造了更多的對外社交和中斷。

The same happens when we change our main profile photo?—?Facebook knows that’s a moment when we’re vulnerable to social approval: “ what do my friends think of my new pic? ” Facebook can rank this higher in the news feed, so it sticks around for longer and more friends will like or comment on it. Each time they like or comment on it, we’ll get pulled right back.

相同的事情發(fā)生在當(dāng)我們更換了頭像照片的時候——Facebook知道這個我們對于設(shè)計批判而脆弱的時候：“我的朋友對我的新頭像怎么想的殖告？” Facebook 會在信息流中把這個排的更高級別村生，因此他會停留的時間更長冰木，更多的朋友會點贊或評論沿量。每一次他們對它點贊或評論粗恢，我們都會立馬被拉回去。

Everyone innately responds to social approval, but some demographics (teenagers) are more vulnerable to it than others. That’s why it’s so important to recognize how powerful designers are when they exploit this vulnerability.

每個人都天生地回應(yīng)社會認(rèn)同欧瘪，但是某些人群處理它（青少年）比其他人更脆弱。這也是為什么認(rèn)識到設(shè)計師在利用漏洞方面多么強大這個問題很重要匙赞。

Hijack #5: Social Reciprocity (Tit-for-tat)

操控#5 ：社會互惠（以牙還牙佛掖，以眼還眼）

You do me a favor?—?I owe you one next time.

You say, “thank you”— I have to say “you’re welcome.”

You send me an email— it’s rude not to get back to you.

You follow me?—?it’s rude not to follow you back. (especially for teenagers)

你給我一個幫助，下次我欠你一個涌庭。

你說“謝謝”——我必回“不客氣芥被。”

你發(fā)我一封郵件——不回復(fù)你就是無禮的坐榆。

你follow我拴魄，我不follow你就是無禮的。（特別對青少年）

We are vulnerable to needing to reciprocate others’ gestures. But as with Social Approval, tech companies now manipulate how often we experience it.

我們對于報答別人的好意是脆弱的席镀。但是像社會認(rèn)同感一樣匹中。科技公司正在操控我們經(jīng)歷它的頻率豪诲。

In some cases, it’s by accident.Email, texting and messaging apps are social reciprocity factories. But in other cases, companies exploit this vulnerability on purpose.

在一些情況下顶捷，這是不經(jīng)意的。電子郵件屎篱、文本服赎、信息應(yīng)用是社會性互惠工廠。但是其他情況下交播，一些公司故意利用這個漏洞重虑。

LinkedIn is the most obvious offender. LinkedIn wants as many people creating social obligations for each other as possible, because each time they reciprocate (by accepting a connection, responding to a message, or endorsing someone back for a skill) they have to come back to linkedin.com where they can get people to spend more time.

LinkedIn是最明顯的罪犯。LinkedIn想讓盡可能多的人來為他人提供社會義務(wù)秦士。因為每次人們往來（通過接受聯(lián)絡(luò)缺厉，回復(fù)信息，或者又回來為某人的一個技能而背書），他們必須回到Linkedin.com——他們得到人們花了更多時間的地方

Like Facebook, LinkedIn exploits an asymmetry in perception. When you receive an invitation from someone to connect, you imagine that person making a conscious choice to invite you, when in reality, they likely unconsciously responded to LinkedIn’s list of suggested contacts. In other words, LinkedIn turns your unconscious impulses(to “add” a person) into new social obligations that millions of people feel obligated to repay. All while they profit from the time people spend doing it.

像Facebook一樣芽死，Linkedin利用了對知覺的不對稱性乏梁。當(dāng)你收到了某人要連接的邀請時，你想的是那個人做了個清醒的選擇來邀請你关贵，但是現(xiàn)實中遇骑，他們幾乎是下意識的回復(fù)Linkedin的建議聯(lián)系者列表。換句話說揖曾，Linkedin把你下意識的脈沖（去添加一個人）落萎，轉(zhuǎn)化為新的數(shù)百萬人都覺得有義務(wù)回復(fù)的義務(wù)。同時炭剪，從人們做這個當(dāng)中獲利练链。

Imagine millions of people getting interrupted like this throughout their day, running around like chickens with their heads cut off, reciprocating each other?—?all designed by companies who profit from it.

想象數(shù)百萬的人像這樣整天的被打擾，像被砍掉頭的小雞一樣亂跑奴拦，彼此往來媒鼓。所有設(shè)計自從中獲利的公司們。

Welcome to social media.

歡迎來到社交媒體错妖。

After accepting an endorsement, LinkedIn takes advantage of your bias to reciprocate by offering *four* additional people for you to endorse in return.

接受到一個背書后绿鸣，Linkedin從你的偏心報答——通過對另外四個人的背書，得到好處暂氯。

Imagine if technology companies had a responsibility to minimize social reciprocity. Or if there was an independent organization that represented the public’s interests?—?an industry consortium or an FDA for tech?—?that monitored when technology companies abused these biases?

想象一下如果科技公司有責(zé)任來最小化社交來往潮模，或者能有代表人們興趣的獨立自主的安排——有一個行業(yè)聯(lián)盟或FDA監(jiān)督科技公司——監(jiān)測這些科技公司是否濫用人們的偏見。

Hijack #6: Bottomless bowls, Infinite Feeds, and Autoplay

操控#6：沒有底的碗痴施，無限供應(yīng)擎厢，和自動播放

YouTube autoplays the next video after a countdown

在倒計時后，Youtube自動播放下一個視頻

Another way to hijack people is to keep them consuming things, even when they aren’t hungry anymore.

另一個操控人們的是讓他們保持消費東西辣吃，甚至在他們不需要的時候动遭。

How? Easy.Take an experience that was bounded and finite, and turn it into a bottomless flow that keeps going.

怎么做？簡單神得。體驗一下被限制或捆綁的經(jīng)驗沽损，然后把它變成一個非限制的操作流。

Cornell professor Brian Wansink demonstrated this in his study showing you can trick people into keep eating soup by giving them a bottomless bowl that automatically refills as they eat. With bottomless bowls, people eat 73% more calories than those with normal bowls and underestimate how many calories they ate by 140 calories.

康奈爾大學(xué)教授Brian Wansink 在他的研究中論證了循头，你可以給人一個沒有底的碗來騙他們不停的喝粥绵估。碗會在人們吃的時候自己再裝滿。用這個無底的碗卡骂，人們會比用正常碗的人多吃73%卡路里国裳。低估了他們吃了140卡路里的熱量。

Tech companies exploit the same principle. News feeds are purposely designed to auto-refill with reasons to keep you scrolling, and purposely eliminate any reason for you to pause, reconsider or leave.

這些科技公司利用了相同的原則全跨。新的內(nèi)容被故意的設(shè)計成無故的自動加載來保持你滾屏缝左。并且根除所有會讓你暫停、重新思考，離開的原因渺杉。

It’s also why video and social media sites like Netflix, YouTube or Facebook auto play the next video after a countdown instead of waiting for you to make a conscious choice (in case you won’t). A huge portion of traffic on these websites is driven by autoplaying the next thing.

這也是為什么象Netflix , Youtube, Facebook這樣的視頻社交媒體蛇数，在倒計時后自動播放下一個視頻，而不是讓你做一個清醒的選擇（另外一種情況是你不會）是越。在這些網(wǎng)站上耳舅，非常大的一部分流量是由于自動播放下一個。

Facebook autoplays the next video after a countdown

Facebook在倒計時后自動播放下一個視頻倚评。

Tech companies often claim that “we’re just making it easier for users to see the video they want to watch” when they are actually serving their business interests. And you can’t blame them, because increasing “time spent” is the currency they compete for.

當(dāng)科技公司們在為他們的商業(yè)利益服務(wù)時浦徊，他們經(jīng)常這樣澄清，“我們只是讓想看這個視頻的用戶更加簡單”天梧。而你并不能責(zé)怪他們盔性，因為所增加使用時長，就是他們追逐的金錢呢岗。

Instead, imagine if technology companies empowered you to consciously bound your experience to align with what would be “time well spent” for you. Not just bounding the quantity of time you spend, but the qualities of what would be “time well spent.”

相反的冕香，想象一下，如果科技公司授權(quán)讓你自己清醒地為自己界定什么是“好好利用時間”體驗后豫。你不僅限定所花費時間的數(shù)量悉尾，還有什么才算是“好好利用時間”的質(zhì)量。

Hijack #7: Instant Interruption vs. “Respectful” Delivery

操控#7： 立即打斷 vs ?“尊重”交付

Companies know that messages that interrupt people immediately are more persuasive at getting people to respond than messages delivered asynchronously (like email or any deferred inbox).

企業(yè)知道立即打算人們的信息比異步推送的信息（像電子郵件和任何延遲的收件箱）在得到回復(fù)方面更有說服力硬贯。

Given the choice, Facebook Messenger (or WhatsApp, WeChat or SnapChat for that matter) would prefer to design their messaging system to interrupt recipients immediately (and show a chat box)instead of helping users respect each other’s attention.

給到選擇，F(xiàn)acebook Messenger（或WhatsApp, WeChat, 又或是SnapChat陨收，在這個問題上）更傾向于把他們的消息系統(tǒng)設(shè)計為立即打斷收件人（呈現(xiàn)出對話框）饭豹，而不是幫助用戶尊重彼此的精力。

In other words,interruption is good for business.

換句話說务漩，打斷有利于生意拄衰。

It’s also in their interest to heighten the feeling of urgency and social reciprocity. For example, Facebook automatically tells the sender when you “saw” their message, instead of letting you avoid disclosing whether you read it(“now that you know I’ve seen the message, I feel even more obligated to respond.”)

提高緊迫感和社交往來也是他們的興趣所在。例如饵骨，F(xiàn)acebook自動得告訴發(fā)送人你是否“已讀”信息翘悉，而不是讓你避免揭露你是否已經(jīng)讀了信息（“現(xiàn)在你知道我已經(jīng)看了信息，這樣我覺得更有回復(fù)的責(zé)任居触⊙欤”）

By contrast, Apple more respectfully lets users toggle “Read Receipts” on or off.

相比之下，Apple更加尊重地讓用戶自己切換“讀取反饋”的開關(guān)轮洋。

The problem is, maximizing interruptions in the name of business creates a tragedy of the commons, ruining global attention spans and causing billions of unnecessary interruptions each day. This is a huge problem we need to fix with shared design standards (potentially, as part of Time Well Spent).

問題是制市，以商業(yè)名義下的最大化中斷創(chuàng)造了一個公共悲劇，破壞了全球的注意力范圍弊予，每天導(dǎo)致了數(shù)億的沒有必要的中斷行為祥楣。這是一個巨大的問題，我們需要用共享設(shè)計標(biāo)準(zhǔn)來修復(fù)。

Hijack #8: Bundling Your Reasons with Their Reasons

操控#8误褪，把你和他們的目的捆綁起來

Another way apps hijack you is by taking your reasons for visiting the app (to perform a task) and make them inseparable from the app’s business reasons(maximizing how much we consume once we’re there).

Apps操控我們的另外一種方式是利用你打開App的原因（完成一個任務(wù)）责鳍，讓這些原因與App的商業(yè)目的緊密聯(lián)系起來。（一旦我們在兽间，就最大化我們消費的數(shù)量）

For example, in the physical world of grocery stores, the #1 and #2 most popular reasons to visit are pharmacy refills and buying milk. But grocery stores want to maximize how much people buy, so they put the pharmacy and the milk at the back of the store.

例如历葛，在一個真實的百貨店里，頭一兩件重要的原因就是買藥和買牛奶渡八。但是百貨店想做大化的讓人們購買啃洋。所以他們把藥店和牛奶放在最里面。

In other words, they make the thing customers want (milk, pharmacy) inseparable from what the business wants. If stores were truly organized to support people, they would put the most popular items in the front.

換句話說屎鳍，他們把消費者的意志（買藥和牛奶）和商業(yè)目的緊密的結(jié)合起來宏娄。如果百貨店是真地被安排的幫助人們，他們會把最熱門的東西擺放在前面逮壁。

Tech companies design their websites the same way. For example, when you you want to look up a Facebook event happening tonight (your reason) the Facebook app doesn’t allow you to access it without first landing on the news feed (their reasons), and that’s on purpose.Facebook wants to convert every reason you have for using Facebook, into their reason which is to maximize the time you spend consuming things.

科技公司用相同的方式設(shè)計他們的網(wǎng)站孵坚。例如，你想查看下Facebook今晚的熱門事件（你的目的）窥淆，F(xiàn)acebook 不會讓你訪問它卖宠，而跳過了登陸新聞頁（他們的目的）。并且那就是故意的忧饭。Facebook 想把你所有的訪問它的所有理由扛伍，變成他們的原因，那就是最大化你停留消費的事件词裤。

Instead, imagine if …

Twitter gave you a?separate way?to post an Tweet than having to see their news feed.

Facebook gave a?separate way?to look up Facebook Events going on tonight, without being forced to use their news feed.

Facebook gave you a?separate way?to use Facebook Connect as a passport for creating new accounts on 3rd party apps and websites, without being forced to install Facebook’s entire app, news feed and notifications.

相反的刺洒，想象一下如果……

Twitter給你一個獨有的方式去上傳一條推特，而不是必須看到他們的新聞頁吼砂。

Facebook給你一個獨有的方式去查看今晚的熱門事件逆航，而不是被強迫的使用他們的新聞頁。

Facebook給你一個獨有的方式使用Facebook賬號作為關(guān)聯(lián)渔肩，接入第三方應(yīng)用和網(wǎng)頁生成的新的賬號因俐，而不是強迫安裝Facebook整個的應(yīng)用和新聞頁及消息推送。

In a Time Well Spent world, there is always a direct way to get what you want separately from what businesses want. Imagine a digital “bill of rights” outlining design standards that forced the products used by billions of people to let them navigate directly to what they want without needing to go through intentionally placed distractions.

在一個優(yōu)質(zhì)利用時間的世界里周偎，總有一個直接的方式獲得你想要的抹剩，區(qū)別于商業(yè)所想要的。想象一個數(shù)字的“權(quán)利法案”蓉坎，為那些強迫十億人使用的產(chǎn)品來定義設(shè)計的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)吧兔。讓他們直接地導(dǎo)航到用戶想要的，而不是需要經(jīng)歷故意放置的干擾項袍嬉。

Imagine if web browsers empowered you to navigate directly to what you want?—?especially for sites that intentionally detour you toward their reasons.

想象如果網(wǎng)頁瀏覽器授權(quán)你境蔼，直接地導(dǎo)航到你想要的——特別是那些故意地把你繞到他們的動機上的網(wǎng)站灶平。

Hijack #9: Inconvenient Choices

操控#9： 不方便的選項

We’re told that it’s enough for businesses to “make choices available.”

“If you don’t like it you can always use a different product.”

“If you don’t like it, you can always unsubscribe.”

“If you’re addicted to our app, you can always uninstall it from your phone.”

我們被告知，對于業(yè)務(wù)來說“可做的選項”已經(jīng)足夠了箍土。

如果你不喜歡逢享，你可以換個不同的產(chǎn)品。

如果你不喜歡吴藻，你可以退訂瞒爬。

如果你迷戀我們的應(yīng)用，你可以不用在手機上安裝沟堡。

Businesses naturally want to make the choices they want you to make easier, and the choices they don’t want you to make harder. Magicians do the same thing. You make it easier for a spectator to pick the thing you want them to pick, and harder to pick the thing you don’t.

商業(yè)本質(zhì)上想讓你更簡單的選擇他們讓你所選的侧但，他們不想你很艱難的做選擇。魔術(shù)師也是一樣航罗。為了觀眾你把它變得更簡單的來挑選你想他們選擇的事情禀横，更困難的挑選你不想讓的。

For example, NYTimes.com lets you “make a free choice” to cancel your digital subscription. But instead of just doing it when you hit “Cancel Subscription,” they send you an email with information on how to cancel your account by calling a phone number that’s only open at certain times.

例如粥血，紐約時報網(wǎng)讓你“做一個自由的選擇”來取消你的數(shù)字訂閱柏锄。但是，相比于通過點擊“取消訂閱”完成它复亏，他們發(fā)給你一封郵件趾娃，有怎樣通過撥打一個定時開放的號碼來取消你的賬戶。

NYTimes claims it’s giving a free choice to cancel your account

紐約時報聲稱這是給你取消你賬戶的一個自由選擇缔御。

Instead of viewing the world in terms of availability of choices, we should view the world in terms of friction required to enact choices. Imagine a world where choices were labeled with how difficult they were to fulfill (like coefficients of friction) and there was an independent entity?—?an industry consortium or non-profit?—?that labeled these difficulties and set standards for how easy navigation should be.

相比于抬闷，從提供多個選項可用的這個角度來觀察世界，我們應(yīng)該從能選擇所需的選項這個角度來觀察世界耕突。想象一個選項被標(biāo)記的難以完成（類似于摩擦系數(shù)）的世界笤成，并且有一個獨立的實體—— 一個行業(yè)聯(lián)盟或者非營利性的——他們標(biāo)記這些困難，并且為導(dǎo)航應(yīng)該多么簡單而設(shè)置標(biāo)準(zhǔn)有勾。

Hijack #10: Forecasting Errors, “Foot in the Door” strategies

操控#10： 預(yù)測錯誤疹启，“一只腳邁進(jìn)門”的策略

Facebook promises an easy choice to “See Photo.” Would we still click if it gave the true price tag?

Facebook承諾了一個簡單的選項來“看照片”古程。如果他給出了這個真實的價格標(biāo)簽蔼卡，你會仍然點擊嗎？

Lastly, apps can exploit people’s inability to forecast the consequences of a click.

最后挣磨，apps可以利用人們的無法預(yù)測點擊一下的后果雇逞。

People don’t intuitively forecast the true cost of a click when it’s presented to them. Sales people use “foot in the door” techniques by asking for a small innocuous request to begin with (“just one click to see which tweet got retweeted”) and escalate from there (“why don’t you stay awhile?”). Virtually all engagement websites use this trick.

當(dāng)點擊一下呈現(xiàn)給人們時，他們無法直觀的預(yù)測它的真實代價茁裙。銷售人員利用“一只腳邁進(jìn)門”的技巧塘砸，通過提問一個小小的無害的請求來開場。（“僅點擊一下就能知道那條Tweet被轉(zhuǎn)發(fā)了”）緊接著就從這樣開始升級晤锥。（“為什么你不呆一會兒掉蔬？”）幾乎所有的相關(guān)網(wǎng)頁都使用這個伎倆廊宪。

Imagine if web browsers and smartphones, the gateways through which people make these choices, were truly watching out for people and helped them forecast the consequences of clicks (based on real data about what benefits and costs it actually had?).

想象一下，如果網(wǎng)頁瀏覽器和智能手機女轿，網(wǎng)關(guān)貫穿了這些做出決定的人們箭启。真正地看著人們，并且?guī)退麄冾A(yù)測點擊后的后果蛉迹。（基于真實的關(guān)于有什么成本和效益的數(shù)據(jù)）傅寡。

That’s why I add “Estimated reading time” to the top of my posts. When you put the “true cost” of a choice in front of people, you’re treating your users or audience with dignity and respect. In a Time Well Spent internet, choices could be framed in terms of projected cost and benefit, so people were empowered to make informed choices by default, not by doing extra work.

這是為什么我在文章的頂部加上了“大概閱讀時長” 。當(dāng)你把“真實花費”的選項擺在人們面前時北救，你對待你的用戶或觀眾以體面和尊重荐操。在一個好好利用時間的網(wǎng)絡(luò)中，在預(yù)計成本和效益方面珍策，選擇權(quán)可以被構(gòu)建托启，所以人們被默認(rèn)授予做出明智選擇，而不是通過額外的工作量膛壹。

TripAdvisor uses a “foot in the door” technique by asking for a single click review (“How many stars?”) while hiding the three page survey of questions behind the click.

TripAdvisor 通過一個簡單的點擊評論驾中，從而利用了“一只腳邁進(jìn)門”的技巧。（“有多少星星模聋？”）然而在點擊后面隱藏了三頁的問題調(diào)研肩民。

Summary And How We Can Fix This

概括一下，我們要怎樣修復(fù)這些問題链方。

Are you upset that technology hijacks your agency? I am too. I’ve listed a few techniques but there are literally thousands. Imagine whole bookshelves, seminars, workshops and trainings that teach aspiring tech entrepreneurs techniques like these. Imagine hundreds of engineers whose job every day is to invent new ways to keep you hooked.

你對科技公司操控你的代理所失望持痰？我也是。我列出了幾條技巧祟蚀，但實際上有上千條工窍。聯(lián)想一下那些類似的勵志教嗦科技公司的整架圖書，課程前酿，講習(xí)班和培訓(xùn)患雏。想象一下成百的工程師，他們每天的工作就是發(fā)明方法來吸引你罢维。

The ultimate freedom is a free mind, and we need technology that’s on our team to help us live, feel, think and act freely.

最終極的自由是一個自由的頭腦淹仑，我們需要科技公司和我們一伍來幫助我們自由地生活，感受肺孵，思考和行為匀借。

We need our smartphones, notifications screens and web browsers to be exoskeletons for our minds and interpersonal relationships that put our values, not our impulses, first.People’s time is valuable. And we should protect it with the same rigor as privacy and other digital rights.

我們需要智能手機，通知界面平窘，和網(wǎng)頁瀏覽器來作為我們頭腦的武器吓肋，體現(xiàn)我們價值觀的人際關(guān)系，而不是沖動瑰艘。首先是鬼，人的時間是珍貴的肤舞。其次，我們應(yīng)保護我們的數(shù)字權(quán)利均蜜，嚴(yán)格的像保護我們的隱私權(quán)一樣萨赁。

Tristan Harris was a Product Philosopher at Google until 2016 where he studied how technology affects a billion people’s attention, wellbeing and behavior. For more resources on Time Well Spent, seehttp://timewellspent.io.

Tristan Harris 原是Google的產(chǎn)品哲學(xué)家，直到2016年兆龙，他研究了科技公司是如何影響十億人的注意力杖爽，幸福和行為。關(guān)于“好好利用時間”更多的信息紫皇，請查看http://timewellspent.io慰安。

UPDATE: The first version of this post lacked acknowledgements to those who inspired my thinking over many years includingJoe Edelman,Aza Raskin, Raph D’Amico,Jonathan Harris and Damon Horowitz.

更新：這篇文章的第一個版本，缺少對那些影響我想法很多年的人們的感謝聪铺。包含有：Joe Edelman, Aza Raskin, Raph D’Amico,Jonathan Harris和Damon Horowitz化焕。

My thinking on menus and choice making are deeply rooted in Joe Edelman’s work on Human Values and Choice making.

我在有關(guān)菜單和做選擇方面的理論，深受Joe Edelman的“從事于人類價值觀和選擇權(quán)”影響铃剔。

————————————————————————————————————————————————

原文鏈接：https://medium.com/swlh/how-technology-hijacks-peoples-minds-from-a-magician-and-google-s-design-ethicist-56d62ef5edf3#.h072qkpkh