If you type the word ‘technology’ into a Google insights tool[1], the results will throw up top related queries; ‘will technology save us’, ‘can technology save the planet’, ‘why technology is bad’, ‘when technology fails’. The queries are revealing but they simply confirm what we’ve already learnt in the last few years – technology is ubiquitous but it may not be all that good for us.
Our consumer research is often based on conversation analysis – what individuals publicly discuss, but more interesting – although much more restricted for very good reason- is search data. Our reliance on the internet for information means that search data is one of the most revealing ways to understand what is occupying the minds of any given population or group of people. It feels private and therefore we let our guard down.
How our reliance on technology grew
Looking back at some of the world’s earliest innovations, we can make a fair assessment that human intelligence was responsible for building practical products with clear benefits. The Sony Walkman changed the way we were able to enjoy music; photography allowed us to capture history visually, and instant messaging gave us the ability to talk in real-time with anyone in the world. These were all built to enhance how we experience and interact with the world, and most would argue that each of these made our lives a little bit more exciting, but as new technology develops, so does behaviour.
Fast forward to the modern-day digital landscape and we’ve accumulated reams and reams of data from millions of individuals using millions of devices. Our personal data is a huge asset in the age of the internet which makes it both valuable and vulnerable. And so underneath the practical benefits of evolving innovations grew a dependence that went beyond the rational.
Looking back at some of the world’s earliest innovations, we can make a fair assessment that human intelligence was responsible for building practical products with clear benefits. The Sony Walkman changed the way we were able to enjoy music; photography allowed us to capture history visually, and instant messaging gave us the ability to talk in real-time with anyone in the world. These were all built to enhance how we experience and interact with the world, and most would argue that each of these made our lives a little bit more exciting, but as new technology develops, so does behaviour.
Fast forward to the modern-day digital landscape and we’ve accumulated reams and reams of data from millions of individuals using millions of devices. Our personal data is a huge asset in the age of the internet which makes it both valuable and vulnerable. And so underneath the practical benefits of evolving innovations grew a dependence that went beyond the rational.
From the rational to the irrational
Over the past decade tech companies have argued that their products are faster, smaller and lighter but it’s getting more difficult to tell the difference year on year.
Peter Thiel, venture capitalist and founder of PayPal, made a comment on what he perceives to be technological stagnation: “we were promised flying cars; we got 140 characters“.
So rather than more practical benefits that help us get from A to B (I’m still holding out for teleportation), designers and engineers began to create devices that were more ‘intelligent’, responsive and in tune with an individual’s emotions – you could argue that this could be summarised as ‘people want to avoid boring tasks’.
“It’s complicated” with Tech
As we give away more of our data to feed artificial intelligence and machine learning, the more our relationship with technology comes into question, namely because it’s starting to freak us out. Douglas Adams, author of The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy once reflected on reflects our growing relationship with technology: “Anything that is in the world when you are born is normal and ordinary, and is just a natural part of the way the world work, anything that’s invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it. Anything invented after you’re 35 is against the natural order of things”.
This has in turn forced us to think more critically and bring back some rationality to our decisions. What do we need X technology for? Is Y replacing something I used to find valuable? For the latter, the standard argument is that screens are replacing human interactions, creating a crisis in social skills which may cause our children to lose the ability to be communicate. Former design ethicist at Google Tristan Harris speaks passionately about unravelling our emotional ties to technology and encouraging us to spend our time better.
If we don’t think more critically, we might end up doing more things automatically. And if we do things more automatically, we are more predictable, creating more predictable work. So as much as we want to avoid the boring tasks, we want to make sure we maintain control over our relationship with technology.
Being one step ahead
We should not only be thinking about the logical benefit, but also as Rory Sutherland, Ogilvy Vice Chairman has said be aware of the ‘pyscho-logical’ reason – the real reason for doing. As masters of post-rationalisation, we’ll act based on a feeling and then identify some reason why that action was logically the right thing to do.
If we can pay more attention to how the rational and emotional pull us in different directions, we ensure our products and campaigns appeal to both. The best ideas form when two very different or opposing things come together so diversity and variety is essential.
Will technology save us? It depends on how you use it.
[1] The tool used is Answerthepublic.com which is describes itself as a consumer insights tool with results provided by Google and Bing.