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

“愚弄人比说服人们被愚弄了更容易”——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.

我是科技如何操纵我们脆弱心理方面的专家，那也就是为什么我花了近三年的时间，作为Google的一个设计伦理学家，致力于怎么保护十亿用户的心理，不被操控的方式去设计事物。

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.

当使用科技时，我们常常正面地关注它能为我们做的事情。但是以下我想说明的是它也会有负面的地方。

Where does technology exploit our minds’ weaknesses?

科技利用了哪些我们的心理脆弱点？

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。

当我是一个魔术师的时候，我研究过这个问题。魔术师从寻找人的盲点、边缘、漏洞和人们感知的限制开始，所以他们可以影响人们做些他们都意识到的事情。一旦你知道如何按下人们的开关，你就可以像弹钢琴一样玩弄他们。那是我在我妈的生日聚会上表演手的魔术伎俩。

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.

这也正是产品设计师对你大脑所做的事情。他们（有意识的和下意识的）操控你的心理弱点，对抗你控制自己注意力的几率。

I want to show you how they do it.

我给你解释下，他们是如何做的。

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

操控#1：控制了菜单，则控制了选择

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.

西方文化被建立在个人选择和自由的理想上。成千上百万的我们激烈地保护我们做自由选择的权利，然而我们忽略了这些菜单选项，是如何逆流而上的被摆弄成我们并没有选在首要的位置上。

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.

这恰恰就是魔术师所做的。当架构设计菜单的时候，他们给人们自由选择的错觉，所以不管你怎么选择他们都赢了，我没办法完全的强调这个洞察力有多么深奥。

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)

当给人们一个选择菜单时，他们很少问及：

“什么没在菜单上？”

“为什么我被给到这些选项而不是其他的？”

“我知道菜单提供者的意图么？”

“这个菜单是来自我最初的需求吗？或者实际上是干扰项？”（例图：一种压倒性的牙膏排放）

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

如何赋予这个选择菜单以需求，“我缺牙膏吗？”

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，想象你在周二晚上和朋友一块在外面，并且想继续聊聊天。你打开了Yelp来查找附近推荐的地方，然后你看到一个酒吧的列表。一群人变成了一堆盯着手机对比酒吧的脸。他们仔细检查每一张照片，对比着鸡尾酒。这个菜单仍然和最初这群人的需求相匹配吗？

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.

并不是说这个酒吧就不是一个好的选项，而是Yelp把这伙人最初的问题（“我们可以去哪继续聊天？”）替换成了一个不一样的问题（“哪个酒吧有不错的鸡尾酒照片？”）这全都是通过调整菜单项。

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，这伙人陷入了Yelp的菜单就代表了能去的地方的全部选项的错觉。当他们低头看手机的时候，他们没有想到，那个穿过街道有个正演奏音乐的公园。他们错失了在街道另外一边的那个出现的画廊在卖可丽饼和咖啡。他们都没有出现在Yelp的菜单上。

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

就提供鸡尾酒照片而言，Yelp巧妙地重构了这伙人的需求“我们可以去哪继续聊天？”。

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?

科技带给我们几乎涵盖生活方方面面的选择越多（信息、事件、地点、朋友、约会、工作），我们便越是臆断我们的手机是最自主的和有用的菜单，可以从中做选择，不是吗？

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).

这个“最自主”的菜单与有最多选择的菜单是不同的。但当我们盲目投降于被给到的菜单的时候，失去寻找不同是很容易的。

“谁今晚上能出来玩？” 变成了那个近来给我们发消息的人的菜单（是谁我们可以想象）。

“最近发生了什么？” 变成了最新的推送报道的菜单。

“谁是单身可以参加约会？” 变成了一个在Tinder上可以滑动的脸的菜单（而不是与朋友的当地活动，或者附近城市的探险）。

“我必须回复这封电子邮件。” 变成了一个键入菜单，键入回复（而不是自主方式来跟人交流）

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)

所有的用户界面是菜单。如果你的电子邮箱客户端授予你选择回复的方式，而不是“你想回复什么信息？”，该会怎样？（设计出自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)

当我们早上醒来，翻开我们的手机来看消息列表-它构成“早上醒来”的体验，围绕着我从昨天错过的“所有事情”的菜单。（更多的例子，请查看Joe Edelman的授权设计的演讲）

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)

当我们早上醒来的通知列表- 这个列表的选择项是怎样授权的？它体现了我们关心什么吗？（Joe Edelman的授权设计的演讲）

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.

通过优化我们挑选的菜单，科技操控我们感知做出选择的方式，并把他们替换成新的选项。但是我们越是将注意力放到给到我们的选项上，当没有真正对准我们的需求的时候，我们会越容易注意到。

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

操控#2：在十亿人的口袋中放上老虎机

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

如果你是一个应用程序, 你怎么保持用户被吸引，把你自己变成一台老虎机。

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

用户平均一天检查他们的手机150次。为什么我们要这么做？我们在做150次有意识的选择吗？

How often do you check your email per day?

你每天检查你的邮箱的频率如何？

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

为什么#1的心理成分在老虎机里主要的原因是：间歇变量奖励

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.

如果你想最大化成瘾性，设计师该做的所有的事情就是，连接用户的一个行为（像拉下手柄）到某种变量奖励。你拉下一个手柄，立即会收到诱人的奖励（一个比赛，一个奖励）或是什么都没有。当奖励的概率总是变量时，成瘾性达到最大化。

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.

这个效应真的在人们身上起作用吗？是的。在美国老虎机赚的钱比棒球、电影、主题公园的总和都要多。相对于其他种类的赌博，人“成问题地卷入”老虎机的3-4x faster。依据 纽约大学教授 Natasha Dow Schull《设计成瘾》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.

但是这里有个不幸的真理——几十亿的人类都有一台老虎机在他们口袋里：

当我们从口袋掏出手机，我就在玩老虎机来看看我们收到了什么通知。

当我们刷新电子邮箱的时候，我就在玩老虎机来看看我们收到了什么新邮件。

当我们滑下我们的手指滚动Instagram推送的时候，我就在玩老虎机来看看将有什么照片出现。

当我们在类似Tinder的交友应用里左右滑动面部的时候，我就在玩老虎机来看我们是否得到了匹配。

当我们点击表示通知的红色标识的时候，我就在玩老虎机来看下面是什么。

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

应用和网站向他们的产品撒满了即时变量奖励，因为这利于生意。

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机是意外出现的。例如，有一个并无恶意的公司，把它后面的邮件有意地变成了老虎机。当上百万的人查看他们的邮件时，什么都没有，并且没人因此获利。Apple和Google的设计师都不想图片工具像老虎机一样。它是意外的出现。

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.

但是现在像Apple Google这样的公司有责任来减少这些效应。通过把即时变量奖励转变成不上瘾的，可预测的更好的设计。例如，他们可以授权人们为想查看他们的老虎机应用而设定一天中或一周中可预测的时间。并且相应的调整，当有新消息推送的时候对准这些时间。

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

操控#3 害怕失去重要的东西

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

另外一个软件应用和网站用来操控人们的方法是，通过减少"1%可能性会错失的某些重要的事。"

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?”)

如果我说服了你，我（应用或网站）是一个为了重要的信息，消息，朋友，或潜在两性机会的频道。对你来说很难将我（应用或网站）关闭，取消订阅，或撤下账户。应为你可能会错失某些重要的事情（哈哈，我赢了）。

这让我们保持订阅通讯，即使他们没有提供最近的好处。（“如果我错失了将来的通知怎么办？”）

这让我们保持成为某些好几年没说过话的人的好友。（“如果我从他们那错失了重要的事怎么办？”）

这让我们持续的滑动交友软件上面的头像。即使我们有一阵子没有和某人见过面了。（“如果我错失那也喜欢我的辣妹怎么办？”）

这让我们持续的使用社会性媒体（“如果我错失了那个重要的新闻，或赶不上朋友们正在讨论的事怎么办？”）

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.

但当我们放大这种恐惧，我们会发现它是无界的：我们总会在停止使用某物时错失某些重要的事情。

总有一些奇妙的瞬间，在不用Facebook的第6个钟头时，我们会错失。（例如，老朋友现在正在市里）。

总有一些在Tinder上的奇妙时刻，我们会错失。

总有一些紧急电话，我们会错失，如果我们不是24/7的可被联系到。

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

但是，伴随着害怕随时都会错失某些一些不是为了生活而存在的事情。

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.

一旦我们放开那种恐惧，我们就从噩梦中醒来。这是多么神奇且迅速地啊。当我们一天没有充电，取消那些通知提醒，或者去陆地露营—— 那些顾虑我们原本认为我们不会出现。

We don’t miss what we don’t see.

我们不会失去我们看不见的东西。

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.

这种想法，“如果我错失了重要的事情会怎样？”在没有充电、取消订阅，或者关机之前就产生了，而不是在之后。想象一下科技公司认识到了，并且依据我们所定义的为生活“好好利用时间”主动地帮助我们，协调我们朋友和商业的关系。而不是所谓的我们会错失什么。

Hijack #4: Social Approval

操控#4 社会认同

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

是人类可以接受的最有说服力的事情之一。

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.

对于社会认同，我们都是脆弱的。归属及被我们的同伴所接受或赞赏的需求，是最高的人类意志。但是现在，我们的社会认同感在科技公司手中。

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.

当我被被我的朋友马克标记，我想他做了一个清醒的选择来标记我。但我没有认识到，Facebook这类的公司是多么精心的安排在首要的位置上让他做了标记。

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可以通过自动地建议所有面孔的人们应该去标记，而控制什么频率人们会在图片上被标记。

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，当马克标记我的时候，他事实上是回应了Facebook的建议，而不是做了个独立的选择。但是通过了这样的设计选择，Facebook掌握了对什么频率下成百万的人们在线经历他们的社会认同的倍增器。

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

Facebook利用这类似这样的自动建议，让人们去标记更多的人，创造了更多的对外社交和中断。

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.

相同的事情发生在当我们更换了头像照片的时候——Facebook知道这个我们对于设计批判而脆弱的时候：“我的朋友对我的新头像怎么想的？” Facebook 会在信息流中把这个排的更高级别，因此他会停留的时间更长，更多的朋友会点赞或评论。每一次他们对它点赞或评论，我们都会立马被拉回去。

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.

每个人都天生地回应社会认同，但是某些人群处理它（青少年）比其他人更脆弱。这也是为什么认识到设计师在利用漏洞方面多么强大这个问题很重要。

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

操控#5 ：社会互惠（以牙还牙，以眼还眼）

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)

你给我一个帮助，下次我欠你一个。

你说“谢谢”——我必回“不客气。”

你发我一封邮件——不回复你就是无礼的。

你follow我，我不follow你就是无礼的。（特别对青少年）

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

我们对于报答别人的好意是脆弱的。但是像社会认同感一样。科技公司正在操控我们经历它的频率。

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.

在一些情况下，这是不经意的。电子邮件、文本、信息应用是社会性互惠工厂。但是其他情况下，一些公司故意利用这个漏洞。

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是最明显的罪犯。LinkedIn想让尽可能多的人来为他人提供社会义务。因为每次人们往来（通过接受联络，回复信息，或者又回来为某人的一个技能而背书），他们必须回到Linkedin.com——他们得到人们花了更多时间的地方

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一样，Linkedin利用了对知觉的不对称性。当你收到了某人要连接的邀请时，你想的是那个人做了个清醒的选择来邀请你，但是现实中，他们几乎是下意识的回复Linkedin的建议联系者列表。换句话说，Linkedin把你下意识的脉冲（去添加一个人），转化为新的数百万人都觉得有义务回复的义务。同时，从人们做这个当中获利。

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.

想象数百万的人像这样整天的被打扰，像被砍掉头的小鸡一样乱跑，彼此往来。所有设计自从中获利的公司们。

Welcome to social media.

欢迎来到社交媒体。

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

接受到一个背书后，Linkedin从你的偏心报答——通过对另外四个人的背书，得到好处。

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责任来最小化社交来往，或者能有代表人们兴趣的独立自主的安排——有一个行业联盟或FDA监督科技公司——监测这些科技公司是否滥用人们的偏见。

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

操控#6：没有底的碗，无限供应，和自动播放

YouTube autoplays the next video after a countdown

在倒计时后，Youtube自动播放下一个视频

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

另一个操控人们的是让他们保持消费东西，甚至在他们不需要的时候。

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

怎么做？简单。体验一下被限制或捆绑的经验，然后把它变成一个非限制的操作流。

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.

康奈尔大学教授Brian Wansink 在他的研究中论证了，你可以给人一个没有底的碗来骗他们不停的喝粥。碗会在人们吃的时候自己再装满。用这个无底的碗，人们会比用正常碗的人多吃73%卡路里。低估了他们吃了140卡路里的热量。

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.

这些科技公司利用了相同的原则。新的内容被故意的设计成无故的自动加载来保持你滚屏。并且根除所有会让你暂停、重新思考，离开的原因。

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.

这也是为什么象Netflix , Youtube, Facebook这样的视频社交媒体，在倒计时后自动播放下一个视频，而不是让你做一个清醒的选择（另外一种情况是你不会）。在这些网站上，非常大的一部分流量是由于自动播放下一个。

Facebook autoplays the next video after a countdown

Facebook在倒计时后自动播放下一个视频。

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.

当科技公司们在为他们的商业利益服务时，他们经常这样澄清，“我们只是让想看这个视频的用户更加简单”。而你并不能责怪他们，因为所增加使用时长，就是他们追逐的金钱。

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，想象一下，如果科技公司授权让你自己清醒地为自己界定什么是“好好利用时间”体验。你不仅限定所花费时间的数量，还有什么才算是“好好利用时间”的质量。

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

操控#7： 立即打断 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).

企业知道立即打算人们的信息比异步推送的信息（像电子邮件和任何延迟的收件箱）在得到回复方面更有说服力。

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.

给到选择，Facebook Messenger（或WhatsApp, WeChat, 又或是SnapChat，在这个问题上）更倾向于把他们的消息系统设计为立即打断收件人（呈现出对话框），而不是帮助用户尊重彼此的精力。

In other words,interruption is good for business.

换句话说，打断有利于生意。

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.”)

提高紧迫感和社交往来也是他们的兴趣所在。例如，Facebook自动得告诉发送人你是否“已读”信息，而不是让你避免揭露你是否已经读了信息（“现在你知道我已经看了信息，这样我觉得更有回复的责任。”）

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

相比之下，Apple更加尊重地让用户自己切换“读取反馈”的开关。

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).

问题是，以商业名义下的最大化中断创造了一个公共悲剧，破坏了全球的注意力范围，每天导致了数亿的没有必要的中断行为。这是一个巨大的问题，我们需要用共享设计标准来修复。

Hijack #8: Bundling Your Reasons with Their Reasons

操控#8，把你和他们的目的捆绑起来

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操控我们的另外一种方式是利用你打开App的原因（完成一个任务），让这些原因与App的商业目的紧密联系起来。（一旦我们在，就最大化我们消费的数量）

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，在一个真实的百货店里，头一两件重要的原因就是买药和买牛奶。但是百货店想做大化的让人们购买。所以他们把药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.

换句话说，他们把消费者的意志（买药和牛奶）和商业目的紧密的结合起来。如果百货店是真地被安排的帮助人们，他们会把最热门的东西摆放在前面。

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设计他们的网站。例如，你想查看下Facebook今晚的热门事件（你的目的），Facebook 不会让你访问它，而跳过了登陆新闻页（他们的目的）。并且那就是故意的。Facebook 想把你所有的访问它的所有理由，变成他们的原因，那就是最大化你停留消费的事件。

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，想象一下如果……

Twitter给你一个独有的方式去上传一条推特，而不是必须看到他们的新闻页。

Facebook给你一个独有的方式去查看今晚的热门事件，而不是被强迫的使用他们的新闻页。

Facebook给你一个独有的方式使用Facebook账号作为关联，接入第三方应用和网页生成的新的账号，而不是强迫安装Facebook整个的应用和新闻页及消息推送。

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.

在一个优质利用时间的世界里，总有一个直接的方式获得你想要的，区别于商业所想要的。想象一个数字的“权利法案”，为那些强迫十亿人使用的产品来定义设计的标准。让他们直接地导航到用户想要的，而不是需要经历故意放置的干扰项。

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

想象如果网页浏览器授权你，直接地导航到你想要的——特别是那些故意地把你绕到他们的动机上的网站。

Hijack #9: Inconvenient Choices

操控#9： 不方便的选项

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.”

我们被告知，对于业务来说“可做的选项”已经足够了。

如果你不喜欢，你可以换个不同的产品。

如果你不喜欢，你可以退订。

如果你迷恋我们的应用，你可以不用在手机上安装。

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.

商业本质上想让你更简单的选择他们让你所选的，他们不想你很艰难的做选择。魔术师也是一样。为了观众你把它变得更简单的来挑选你想他们选择的事情，更困难的挑选你不想让的。

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，纽约时报网让你“做一个自由的选择”来取消你的数字订阅。但是，相比于通过点击“取消订阅”完成它，他们发给你一封邮件，有怎样通过拨打一个定时开放的号码来取消你的账户。

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

纽约时报声称这是给你取消你账户的一个自由选择。

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，从提供多个选项可用的这个角度来观察世界，我们应该从能选择所需的选项这个角度来观察世界。想象一个选项被标记的难以完成（类似于摩擦系数）的世界，并且有一个独立的实体—— 一个行业联盟或者非营利性的——他们标记这些困难，并且为导航应该多么简单而设置标准。

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

操控#10： 预测错误，“一只脚迈进门”的策略

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

Facebook承诺了一个简单的选项来“看照片”。如果他给出了这个真实的价格标签，你会仍然点击吗？

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

最后，apps可以利用人们的无法预测点击一下的后果。

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.

当点击一下呈现给人们时，他们无法直观的预测它的真实代价。销售人员利用“一只脚迈进门”的技巧，通过提问一个小小的无害的请求来开场。（“仅点击一下就能知道那条Tweet被转发了”）紧接着就从这样开始升级。（“为什么你不呆一会儿？”）几乎所有的相关网页都使用这个伎俩。

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，如果网页浏览器和智能手机，网关贯穿了这些做出决定的人们。真正地看着人们，并且帮他们预测点击后的后果。（基于真实的关于有什么成本和效益的数据）。

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.

这是为什么我在文章的顶部加上了“大概阅读时长” 。当你把“真实花费”的选项摆在人们面前时，你对待你的用户或观众以体面和尊重。在一个好好利用时间的网络中，在预计成本和效益方面，选择权可以被构建，所以人们被默认授予做出明智选择，而不是通过额外的工作量。

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 通过一个简单的点击评论，从而利用了“一只脚迈进门”的技巧。（“有多少星星？”）然而在点击后面隐藏了三页的问题调研。

Summary And How We Can Fix This

概括一下，我们要怎样修复这些问题。

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.

你对科技公司操控你的代理所失望？我也是。我列出了几条技巧，但实际上有上千条。联想一下那些类似的励志教嗦科技公司的整架图书，课程，讲习班和培训。想象一下成百的工程师，他们每天的工作就是发明方法来吸引你。

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.

最终极的自由是一个自由的头脑，我们需要科技公司和我们一伍来帮助我们自由地生活，感受，思考和行为。

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.

我们需要智能手机，通知界面，和网页浏览器来作为我们头脑的武器，体现我们价值观的人际关系，而不是冲动。首先，人的时间是珍贵的。其次，我们应保护我们的数字权利，严格的像保护我们的隐私权一样。

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的产品哲学家，直到2016年，他研究了科技公司是如何影响十亿人的注意力，幸福和行为。关于“好好利用时间”更多的信息，请查看http://timewellspent.io。

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：这篇文章的第一个版本，缺少对那些影响我想法很多年的人们的感谢。包含有：Joe Edelman, Aza Raskin, Raph D’Amico,Jonathan Harris和Damon Horowitz。

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

我在有关菜单和做选择方面的理论，深受Joe Edelman的“从事于人类价值观和选择权”影响。

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

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