论文部分内容阅读
When we get sucked into our smartphones or distracted， we think it’s just an accident and our responsibility. But it’s not. It’s also because smartphones and apps hijack our innate psychological biases and vulnerabilities.
I learned about our minds’ vulnerabilities when I was a magician. Magicians start by looking for blind spots， vulnerabilities and biases of people’s minds， so they can influence what people do without them even realizing it. Once you know how to push people’s buttons1， you can play them like a piano. And this is exactly what technology does to your mind. App designers play your psychological vulnerabilities in the race to grab your attention.
If you’re an app， how do you keep people hooked？ Turn yourself into a slot machine.
The average person checks their phone 150 times a day. Why do we do this？ Are we making 150 conscious choices？ One major reason why is the number one psychological ingredient in slot machines： intermittent variable rewards2.
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.
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 to3 other kinds of gambling， people get “problematically involved” with slot machines three to four times faster according to New York University professor Natasha Dow Schüll， author of “Addiction by Design.”
A sense of belonging
But here’s the unfortunate truth： Several billion people have a slot machine in their pocket.
When we pull our phone out of our pocket， we’re playing a slot machine to see what notifications we have received. 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 “Pull to Refresh” our email， we’re playing a slot machine to see what email we got.
Sometimes this is intentional： Apps and websites sprinkle4 intermittent variable rewards all over their products because it’s good for business. Other times， for example with email or smartphones， it’s an accident.
Another way technology hijacks our minds is by inducing5 the 1 percent chance we could be missing something important. But Apps also exploit our need for social approval. When we see the notification “Your friend Marc tagged you in a photo” we instantly feel our social approval and sense of belonging on line. But it’s all in the hands of tech companies. Facebook， Instagram or SnapChat can manipulate how often people get tagged in photos by automatically suggesting all the faces we should tag. So when my friend tags me， he’s actually responding to Facebook’s suggestion， not making an independent choice. But through designing choices like this， Facebook controls the multiplier for how often millions of people experience their social approval.
Everyone innately responds to social approval， but some demographics6， in particular 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.
The empire
LinkedIn is another offender. LinkedIn wants as many people creating social obligations for each other as possible， because each time they reciprocate7 （by accepting a connection， responding to a message， or endorsing8 someone back for a skill） they have to come back to linkedin.com where they can get people to spend more time.
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 into new social obligations that millions of people feel obligated to repay. All the while they profit from the time people spend doing it.
Welcome to the empire of social media.
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 our choices are manipulated upstream by menus we didn’t choose in the first place.
When people are given a menu of choices， they rarely ask： “What’s not on the menu？” Or： “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 these choices a distraction？”
Even when we’re not hungry
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. But is it？
Companies maximizing “time spent” design apps to keep people consuming things， even when they aren’t hungry anymore. How？ Easy. Take an experience that was bounded and finite， and turn it into a bottomless flow that keeps going. Cornell professor Brian Wansink demonstrated this in his study showing you can trick people into keeping eating soup by giving them a bottomless bowl that automatically refills as they eat. With bottomless bowls， people eat 73 percent more calories than those with normal bowls.
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.
It’s also why video and social media sites like Netflix， YouTube or Facebook autoplay the next video after a countdown instead of waiting for you to make a conscious choice.
Tragedy of the commons9
Tech companies often claim that they’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.
Companies also know that interruption is good for business. Given the choice， WhatsApp， Snapchat or Facebook Messenger would prefer to design their messaging system to interrupt recipients immediately instead of helping users respect each other’s attention， because they are more likely to respond if it’s immediate. It’s in their interest to heighten the feeling of urgency. For example， Facebook automatically tells the sender when you “saw” their message， instead of letting you avoid disclosing whether you read it. As a consequence， you feel more obligated to respond.
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.
It’s inevitable that billions of people will have phones in their pockets， but they can be designed to serve a different role than deliver hijacks for our mind.
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.
如果智能手機让我们沉迷或分心，我们会以为这纯属偶然，责任全在自己。但实则不然。原因还在于，智能手机和应用程序操控了我们天生的心理偏误和心理弱点。
当初我在做魔术师时，了解到我们的思维弱点。魔术师首先寻找人们的思维盲区、弱点和偏误，从而在他们毫无察觉的状态下左右其行为。一旦知道如何牵着人们的鼻子走，即可像弹奏钢琴一般操纵他们于股掌之间。科技正是以此方式掌控你的思维。应用程序设计者利用你的心理弱点，争相攫取你的注意力。
假如你是一款应用程序，如何让用户对你着魔呢？答案就是变身为一台老虎机。
一般人每天查看手机达150次。我们缘何这样做？我们做的是150次自觉选择吗？一个重要原因就是间歇性变量奖励——这是打老虎机的主导心理因素。
如果希望最大限度实现产品的致瘾性，科技设计师需要做的一切就是将用户行为（比如拉动手柄）和变量奖励相关联。拉动手柄后，或立刻收到一份诱人奖励（相当于参赛即获奖！），或一无所得。当回报率变化最大时，致瘾性即达到最强。 该效应对人们确实起作用吗？没错。在美国，老虎机的获利超过棒球、电影和主题公园三者之和。据纽约大学教授、《人为致瘾》一书的作者娜塔莎·道·许尔所说，人们对老虎机“严重成瘾”的速度之快是其他赌博形式的三至四倍。
网络归属感
然而，不幸的真相在于：数十亿人的衣袋里都装有一台老虎机。
从衣袋里掏出手机时，我们本想查看接到的通知，实则却是在打老虎机。向下滑动手指去翻看照片墙的推送时，我们本想查看下一幅照片，实则却是在打老虎机。“下拉刷新”电子邮件时，我们本想查看新收到的邮件，实则却是在打老虎机。
有时这种状况属于人为：因其有利可图，各应用程序和网站将间歇性变量奖励穿插于产品各处。而有时，比如对于电子邮件或智能手机，该情况则属偶然。
科技还有劫持我们思维的另一途径，即制造1%我们可能会错过要事的几率。但应用程序也利用我们对社会认同的需求。当看到通知“好友马克在照片中标记了您”，我们顿觉得到社会认同、有了线上归属感。然而，这完全掌握在科技公司之手。
脸书、照片墙或色拉布自动推荐所有需要标记的面孔，从而可操控用户在照片中获得标记的频率。因此，好友如果标记我，其实是在听从脸书的建议，而不是在作自主选择。但通过这样的设置，脸书可让无数人感受社会认同的频率成倍增加。
每个人生性都会回应社会认同，不过有些群体，尤其是青少年，较之他人更易受其影响。设计者利用这一弱点就会具备强大的操控力，认识到这一情况十分重要，原因就在于此。
社交媒体帝国
领英同样在操纵人们的思维。领英希望互欠人情的用户多多益善，因为用户每作回应（接受添加好友邀请、回复信息，或者认可联系人的技能），均需重登领英网站，从而可让别人花费更多时间。
和脸书一样，领英也是利用认知的不对称。收到添加好友邀请时，你会以为对方发邀请是出于自觉选择，但实际上，对方很可能是无意中对领英的联系人推荐名单作了回应。换言之，领英将潜意识冲动变作许多人觉得必须回报的新人情。领英始終从人们为此耗费的时间中获利。
欢迎来到社交媒体帝国。
西方文化建立在个人选择与个人自由的理想之上。我们中有无数人坚决捍卫自己的“自由”选择权，而忽视了自己的选择如何在前期就受到最初未选菜单的操控。
收到一份选项菜单时，人们鲜少询问：“哪些内容菜单上没有？”或者“为何给我的是这些选项，而非其他？”“我了解菜单提供者的用意吗？”“这份菜单会满足我的最初需求，还是会分散我的注意力呢？”
不饿仍进食
几乎在生活的方方面面（资讯、活动、去处、交友、约会、求职），科技给我们提供的选择越多，我们越以为手机总是最得力、最实用的可选菜单。但事实的确如此吗？
最大限度追求“耗用时间”的公司设计应用程序的目的在于，即便用户已经不饿，也要让他们继续进食。方法可谓简单：选择一种有限的用户体验，使之变为源源不断的无限信息流。
康奈尔大学教授布赖恩·万辛克证实了这一点。他的研究表明，如果提供一只不见底饭碗，人们喝汤时，饭碗会自动续满，从而可诱导他们不停地喝下去。较之使用普通饭碗的人，使用不见底饭碗者多摄入73%的卡路里。
科技公司运用的是同一原理。新闻推送意在自动持续提供让你浏览下去的理由，而故意不给你停顿、重作考虑或离开的任何借口。
奈飞、优兔、脸书等视频和社交网站在倒计时结束后，不等你作出自觉选择，就自动播放下一条视频，其原因也在于此。
公地悲剧
科技公司往往声称，自己只是在为用户观看喜欢的视频提供更多便利，但实则是在为自己的商业利益服务。他们的行为无可厚非，因为增加用户的“耗用时间”是他们竞相采取的通用手段。
同时，科技公司知道，打扰用户有利可图。如有可能，瓦次普、色拉布或飞书信更愿设计即时打扰接收者而非帮助用户尊重彼此注意力的消息系统，因为用户回应即时消息的可能性更大。强化紧迫感是出于科技公司的利益考虑。比如，你“看到”信息后，脸书会自动告知发送者，而不是允许你避免透露是否读到信息。结果，你会感到更有回复的必要。
问题在于：借商业之名最大限度打扰用户导致公地悲剧，破坏了全球范围人们的注意广度，每天给人们造成无数次的非必要打扰。
手机用户将达数十亿，这是必然趋势，但手机可用以发挥另一作用，而不是劫持我们的思维。
终极自由在于思维的自由。我们需要科技同我们站在一起，帮助我们自由地生活、感受、思考和行动。
（译者为“《英语世界》杯”翻译大赛获奖者）
1 push sb’s buttons引起某人的反应。
2 intermittent variable reward间歇性变量奖励，即每次所获奖励都不可预知，从而保持人们的兴趣，激励人们不断尝试。 3 relative to相比于。
4 sprinkle将……穿插于。 5 induce引起，导致。 6 demographic（商业用词）同类客户群体，（具有共同特征的）人群。
7 reciprocate回应，回报，酬答。 8 endorse认可。Endorsements（技能认可）是领英推出的一项功能，用户可一键认可联系人添加的职业技能。
9 tragedy of the commons公地悲剧，由美国学者加勒特·哈丁（Garrett Hardin）于1968年提出，其核心意思是：人们出于私利而抢占公共资源，终致公共资源遭毁。common公共用地。
I learned about our minds’ vulnerabilities when I was a magician. Magicians start by looking for blind spots， vulnerabilities and biases of people’s minds， so they can influence what people do without them even realizing it. Once you know how to push people’s buttons1， you can play them like a piano. And this is exactly what technology does to your mind. App designers play your psychological vulnerabilities in the race to grab your attention.
If you’re an app， how do you keep people hooked？ Turn yourself into a slot machine.
The average person checks their phone 150 times a day. Why do we do this？ Are we making 150 conscious choices？ One major reason why is the number one psychological ingredient in slot machines： intermittent variable rewards2.
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.
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 to3 other kinds of gambling， people get “problematically involved” with slot machines three to four times faster according to New York University professor Natasha Dow Schüll， author of “Addiction by Design.”
A sense of belonging
But here’s the unfortunate truth： Several billion people have a slot machine in their pocket.
When we pull our phone out of our pocket， we’re playing a slot machine to see what notifications we have received. 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 “Pull to Refresh” our email， we’re playing a slot machine to see what email we got.
Sometimes this is intentional： Apps and websites sprinkle4 intermittent variable rewards all over their products because it’s good for business. Other times， for example with email or smartphones， it’s an accident.
Another way technology hijacks our minds is by inducing5 the 1 percent chance we could be missing something important. But Apps also exploit our need for social approval. When we see the notification “Your friend Marc tagged you in a photo” we instantly feel our social approval and sense of belonging on line. But it’s all in the hands of tech companies. Facebook， Instagram or SnapChat can manipulate how often people get tagged in photos by automatically suggesting all the faces we should tag. So when my friend tags me， he’s actually responding to Facebook’s suggestion， not making an independent choice. But through designing choices like this， Facebook controls the multiplier for how often millions of people experience their social approval.
Everyone innately responds to social approval， but some demographics6， in particular 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.
The empire
LinkedIn is another offender. LinkedIn wants as many people creating social obligations for each other as possible， because each time they reciprocate7 （by accepting a connection， responding to a message， or endorsing8 someone back for a skill） they have to come back to linkedin.com where they can get people to spend more time.
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 into new social obligations that millions of people feel obligated to repay. All the while they profit from the time people spend doing it.
Welcome to the empire of social media.
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 our choices are manipulated upstream by menus we didn’t choose in the first place.
When people are given a menu of choices， they rarely ask： “What’s not on the menu？” Or： “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 these choices a distraction？”
Even when we’re not hungry
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. But is it？
Companies maximizing “time spent” design apps to keep people consuming things， even when they aren’t hungry anymore. How？ Easy. Take an experience that was bounded and finite， and turn it into a bottomless flow that keeps going. Cornell professor Brian Wansink demonstrated this in his study showing you can trick people into keeping eating soup by giving them a bottomless bowl that automatically refills as they eat. With bottomless bowls， people eat 73 percent more calories than those with normal bowls.
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.
It’s also why video and social media sites like Netflix， YouTube or Facebook autoplay the next video after a countdown instead of waiting for you to make a conscious choice.
Tragedy of the commons9
Tech companies often claim that they’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.
Companies also know that interruption is good for business. Given the choice， WhatsApp， Snapchat or Facebook Messenger would prefer to design their messaging system to interrupt recipients immediately instead of helping users respect each other’s attention， because they are more likely to respond if it’s immediate. It’s in their interest to heighten the feeling of urgency. For example， Facebook automatically tells the sender when you “saw” their message， instead of letting you avoid disclosing whether you read it. As a consequence， you feel more obligated to respond.
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.
It’s inevitable that billions of people will have phones in their pockets， but they can be designed to serve a different role than deliver hijacks for our mind.
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.
如果智能手機让我们沉迷或分心，我们会以为这纯属偶然，责任全在自己。但实则不然。原因还在于，智能手机和应用程序操控了我们天生的心理偏误和心理弱点。
当初我在做魔术师时，了解到我们的思维弱点。魔术师首先寻找人们的思维盲区、弱点和偏误，从而在他们毫无察觉的状态下左右其行为。一旦知道如何牵着人们的鼻子走，即可像弹奏钢琴一般操纵他们于股掌之间。科技正是以此方式掌控你的思维。应用程序设计者利用你的心理弱点，争相攫取你的注意力。
假如你是一款应用程序，如何让用户对你着魔呢？答案就是变身为一台老虎机。
一般人每天查看手机达150次。我们缘何这样做？我们做的是150次自觉选择吗？一个重要原因就是间歇性变量奖励——这是打老虎机的主导心理因素。
如果希望最大限度实现产品的致瘾性，科技设计师需要做的一切就是将用户行为（比如拉动手柄）和变量奖励相关联。拉动手柄后，或立刻收到一份诱人奖励（相当于参赛即获奖！），或一无所得。当回报率变化最大时，致瘾性即达到最强。 该效应对人们确实起作用吗？没错。在美国，老虎机的获利超过棒球、电影和主题公园三者之和。据纽约大学教授、《人为致瘾》一书的作者娜塔莎·道·许尔所说，人们对老虎机“严重成瘾”的速度之快是其他赌博形式的三至四倍。
网络归属感
然而，不幸的真相在于：数十亿人的衣袋里都装有一台老虎机。
从衣袋里掏出手机时，我们本想查看接到的通知，实则却是在打老虎机。向下滑动手指去翻看照片墙的推送时，我们本想查看下一幅照片，实则却是在打老虎机。“下拉刷新”电子邮件时，我们本想查看新收到的邮件，实则却是在打老虎机。
有时这种状况属于人为：因其有利可图，各应用程序和网站将间歇性变量奖励穿插于产品各处。而有时，比如对于电子邮件或智能手机，该情况则属偶然。
科技还有劫持我们思维的另一途径，即制造1%我们可能会错过要事的几率。但应用程序也利用我们对社会认同的需求。当看到通知“好友马克在照片中标记了您”，我们顿觉得到社会认同、有了线上归属感。然而，这完全掌握在科技公司之手。
脸书、照片墙或色拉布自动推荐所有需要标记的面孔，从而可操控用户在照片中获得标记的频率。因此，好友如果标记我，其实是在听从脸书的建议，而不是在作自主选择。但通过这样的设置，脸书可让无数人感受社会认同的频率成倍增加。
每个人生性都会回应社会认同，不过有些群体，尤其是青少年，较之他人更易受其影响。设计者利用这一弱点就会具备强大的操控力，认识到这一情况十分重要，原因就在于此。
社交媒体帝国
领英同样在操纵人们的思维。领英希望互欠人情的用户多多益善，因为用户每作回应（接受添加好友邀请、回复信息，或者认可联系人的技能），均需重登领英网站，从而可让别人花费更多时间。
和脸书一样，领英也是利用认知的不对称。收到添加好友邀请时，你会以为对方发邀请是出于自觉选择，但实际上，对方很可能是无意中对领英的联系人推荐名单作了回应。换言之，领英将潜意识冲动变作许多人觉得必须回报的新人情。领英始終从人们为此耗费的时间中获利。
欢迎来到社交媒体帝国。
西方文化建立在个人选择与个人自由的理想之上。我们中有无数人坚决捍卫自己的“自由”选择权，而忽视了自己的选择如何在前期就受到最初未选菜单的操控。
收到一份选项菜单时，人们鲜少询问：“哪些内容菜单上没有？”或者“为何给我的是这些选项，而非其他？”“我了解菜单提供者的用意吗？”“这份菜单会满足我的最初需求，还是会分散我的注意力呢？”
不饿仍进食
几乎在生活的方方面面（资讯、活动、去处、交友、约会、求职），科技给我们提供的选择越多，我们越以为手机总是最得力、最实用的可选菜单。但事实的确如此吗？
最大限度追求“耗用时间”的公司设计应用程序的目的在于，即便用户已经不饿，也要让他们继续进食。方法可谓简单：选择一种有限的用户体验，使之变为源源不断的无限信息流。
康奈尔大学教授布赖恩·万辛克证实了这一点。他的研究表明，如果提供一只不见底饭碗，人们喝汤时，饭碗会自动续满，从而可诱导他们不停地喝下去。较之使用普通饭碗的人，使用不见底饭碗者多摄入73%的卡路里。
科技公司运用的是同一原理。新闻推送意在自动持续提供让你浏览下去的理由，而故意不给你停顿、重作考虑或离开的任何借口。
奈飞、优兔、脸书等视频和社交网站在倒计时结束后，不等你作出自觉选择，就自动播放下一条视频，其原因也在于此。
公地悲剧
科技公司往往声称，自己只是在为用户观看喜欢的视频提供更多便利，但实则是在为自己的商业利益服务。他们的行为无可厚非，因为增加用户的“耗用时间”是他们竞相采取的通用手段。
同时，科技公司知道，打扰用户有利可图。如有可能，瓦次普、色拉布或飞书信更愿设计即时打扰接收者而非帮助用户尊重彼此注意力的消息系统，因为用户回应即时消息的可能性更大。强化紧迫感是出于科技公司的利益考虑。比如，你“看到”信息后，脸书会自动告知发送者，而不是允许你避免透露是否读到信息。结果，你会感到更有回复的必要。
问题在于：借商业之名最大限度打扰用户导致公地悲剧，破坏了全球范围人们的注意广度，每天给人们造成无数次的非必要打扰。
手机用户将达数十亿，这是必然趋势，但手机可用以发挥另一作用，而不是劫持我们的思维。
终极自由在于思维的自由。我们需要科技同我们站在一起，帮助我们自由地生活、感受、思考和行动。
（译者为“《英语世界》杯”翻译大赛获奖者）
1 push sb’s buttons引起某人的反应。
2 intermittent variable reward间歇性变量奖励，即每次所获奖励都不可预知，从而保持人们的兴趣，激励人们不断尝试。 3 relative to相比于。
4 sprinkle将……穿插于。 5 induce引起，导致。 6 demographic（商业用词）同类客户群体，（具有共同特征的）人群。
7 reciprocate回应，回报，酬答。 8 endorse认可。Endorsements（技能认可）是领英推出的一项功能，用户可一键认可联系人添加的职业技能。
9 tragedy of the commons公地悲剧，由美国学者加勒特·哈丁（Garrett Hardin）于1968年提出，其核心意思是：人们出于私利而抢占公共资源，终致公共资源遭毁。common公共用地。