EFTA01803905.pdf

From: Joi Ito Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2013 7:02 PM To: Kevin Slavin; Reid Hoffman; Joshua Ramo; Epstein Jeffrey Subject: designing around little minds Attachments: signature.asc I posted some thoughts on UI and our minds. It's not the network of =inds that Jeffrey's interested in, but this is one element of the =eception and brain stuff that I'm interested in. Thanks for the edits =evin. =ttp://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20130929185906-1391-designing-a=ound-little-minds Designing around little minds In designing user interfaces, we aim to empower the "user" to =nderstand and control the system at hand. Output via screens and =peakers, with input from a keyboard, a touch screen or gestures. =etween them, the "user" is understood to be our conscious "mind" =96 the logical bit of our brain that thinks it's in charge. This "mind" is actually not nearly as "in charge" as it thinks =t is. In fact, our larger and often much more wise mind — the =motional, sub-conscious, parallel-processing, pattern recognizing part =f our nervous system even manipulates and deceives our conscious mind. =rticulated long ago as Dual Process Theory, Kahneman formalizes them as =ystem 1 (this vast, quick and automatic aspect of thinking) and System = (the small "conscious" mind that logically considers and judges). = There is a basic fitness function to having our conscious mind feel =onfident, whether fighting, mating, or even making the small decisions =hat people make to get through a day. But the confidence we are =uilding is with the small and logical part of our minds, deceiving =urselves that things are ok when another part of ourselves might know =therwise. This is articulated in an experiment described by Trivers in which =ubjects are asked to listen to a series of voices, some of which are =heir own. Depending on the confidence of the subjects, some tended to =ttribute their voice to others ... or conversely, mistake other voices =s their own. The interesting thing was that the galvanic skin response =hat connects to our parasympathetic nervous system always reacted =onsistently to our own voices, even when our conscious minds were =eceived. (Trivers 1985) Whether it's the decisions we make or the assessments of how we feel, =e are consistently persuading ourselves that the world is organized and =oherent, and that we understand what's going on, most of the time. In =act, the world is complex and chaotic. Most of what goes on in the =orld -- and even in our own bodies -- is beyond the comprehension and =luckily) the control of our little minds. Thus, good design communicates with the broader, faster, more emotional =ystem. What we call the "flow state" or "in the zone" is just =ur little minds getting out of the way so that our bigger and more =ntuitive mind can run the show. Whether throwing a basketball or =riving a car, if our logical minds were coordinating each step, it =ould be impossibly difficult to coordinate all of the steps. However, =ur little minds are "smart" enough to get out of the way when we =ave mastery and allow the rest of the system dominate. Why is it then that we seem to insist on building and assessing our =ystems based on what our little mind thinks? Think about the testing in =chools that only measures local knowledge and logical skills, or =esigning user interfaces around what the user is focused on like =ull-down menus and the mouse pointer. EFTA_R1_00148651 EFTA01803905 I believe that we must focus much more on creating interfaces that send =nformation to -- and receive controls signals from -- the rest of our =ystem. This could apply to sensors for health, assistive robots, the =nternet of things, thermostats, or future vehicles. The problem is, individually and collectively, our little minds don't =ike to give up control. We have to trick our minds to get out of the =ay sometimes. That's where deception emerges as a design pattern. In the late 1800s, James Naismith, a pastor and a physical education =eacher in Springfield, Massachusetts realized that he needed a way to =eal with young kids who would become restless and unruly during the =arsh New England winters. He knew they needed the exercise, =ollaboration and competition they got the other nine months of the =ear. So Naismith invented basketball, allowing kids to exercise indoors, to =ompete and collaborate, all through playing this fun new game. It =orked swimmingly, and quickly spread through YMCAs and became the sport =t is today. My bet is that if he had called it "social ball" or =93don't-beat-each-other-up ball" it probably wouldn't have been =early the hit that it was. Was this subtle deception immoral? Was it effective? Which part of the =ind was Naismith looking to address, and which part did he find ways to =peak to? Today, we spend so much time telling our conscious and self-deceived =inds what we want it to do. What if we spent more time trying to induce =ur minds to get out of the way, through meditation, play, prayer ... or =ven deception. We need to think less like industrial designers =designing for the intentions of the conscious user) and more like game =esigners (designing for the desires and quick, "irrational" =ehavior of our mind.) We need to design our medical devices, computers, =ehicles and communication tools to be influenced by what we really do =nd think. Not just what we tell ourselves we are doing or thinking. Trivers, R. (1985). Social evolution. Menlo Park, Calif., =enjamin/Cummings Pub. Co. 2 EFTA_R1_00148652 EFTA01803906