So, I have no idea what I’m doing. This might be inter­est­ing to peo­ple. I hope it is. It might not. If it isn’t, you can just tune out for a lit­tle bit. It’s inter­est­ing to me. I’m talk­ing about the psy­cho­log­i­cal demands of tech­nol­o­gy. It’s actu­al­ly going to be a bit broad­er than what Steve said because I tend to be more inter­est­ed the broad­er you go, because I’m a lit­tle aca­d­e­m­ic.

That’s me, in case you don’t know. It’s not par­tic­u­lar­ly inter­est­ing. But you will notice, though, if you pay atten­tion to me in any venue, is you’ll see a lot of this, and you’ll see a lot of this. And less fre­quent­ly but more expen­sive­ly, you’ll see a lot of this.

There are two things about me that are impor­tant here for the top­ic. One is that I am geeky, which means I tend to believe that facts win. The oth­er is that I’m an only child, which means I tend to lack empa­thy. This is true. I speak only for myself. Other only chil­dren might have great empa­thy: I ain’t one of them.

I recent­ly moved to San Francisco about a year ago to join a start­up, and for oth­er per­son­al rea­sons, and I read this book called Hooked, writ­ten by some guy at Stanford. It’s main­ly about how to use the mechan­ics of addic­tion for prof­it, and how to build the mechan­ics of addic­tion in prod­ucts. I have a par­tic­u­lar view of that. It’s starred out. That’s how I feel about it.

Somewhere buried in this book, as a ter­tiary sub-point of some oth­er point that was sub­lim­i­nal to some oth­er thing, he talks about Alcoholics Anonymous. Now, being an only child and lack­ing empa­thy, I have an inher­ent dif­fi­cul­ty in under­stand­ing sup­port groups. And hav­ing nev­er par­tic­i­pat­ed in one or being on the receiv­ing end of one makes it worse. So I accept the fact that they work. There’s evi­dence, proof, research, that they work. I have a hard time under­stand­ing why they work, or that they should work.

So the gen­tle­man in the book talks about the sup­port group pro­vid­ing empa­thy and expe­ri­ence. These peo­ple have been there, done that, some of them are doing it at the same time. So there’s proof that there’s a next step and that the next step is valid and it can be achieved. But then they also pro­vide pos­i­tive rein­force­ment to help you get to the next step, and sup­port. Both these things, lean­ing on the oth­er points about me lack­ing empa­thy, have been con­fus­ing to me my whole life.

But I read this lit­tle para­graph in this book about Alcoholics Anonymous, which remind­ed me of this book that I read a long time ago. And in this book this par­tic­u­lar researcher makes the point that the source of con­fi­dence, the…if you think of it as the bio­log­i­cal or the psy­chophys­i­cal source of con­fi­dence is from effi­ca­cy. You do things when you’re real­ly lit­tle and your suc­cess in doing things, thus you have a sense of effi­ca­cy, that sense of effi­ca­cy trans­lates into con­fi­dence, which is where the psy­chophys­i­cal basis of self-esteem comes from.

So that made me think about what hap­pens when you try to do some­thing new. Generally, you suck. And when you suck, you feel like this:

Illustration of a sad-looking panda

You suck, your effi­ca­cy is chal­lenged, your con­fi­dence is chal­lenged, your esteem is chal­lenged. Which is hard. Brings me back to these guys:

A group of people seated in a circle

If it is the case that doing some­thing new is dif­fi­cult and chal­lenges you, chang­ing some­thing old to do some­thing new takes some­thing even greater.

Changing behav­ior actu­al­ly hurts, and com­mu­ni­ty sup­port fills the esteem gap that is cre­at­ed when you change behav­ior. So you’re tak­ing some­thing you know how to, where you have an effi­ca­cious expe­ri­ence of doing a thing and achiev­ing a result, and you have to throw it out and do some­thing else and start from— You’re not just start­ing from no expe­ri­ence, no effi­ca­cy, build­ing expe­ri­ence and effi­ca­cy and con­fi­dence and esteem. You’re start­ing from I have esteem, I’m going to cut that esteem out of my life. There will be a gap. And I will learn to do some­thing new, which hope­ful­ly I will find effi­ca­cy, con­fi­dence and esteem at, at some point time.

In the mid­dle, there’s pain, because you have cut out a chunk of your con­fi­dence. So they will sup­ply the con­fi­dence you can­not have until you can have it. And all of a sud­den, I was no longer skep­ti­cal about sup­port and help and talk­ing to peo­ple and groups and empa­thy and what needs to hap­pen for change.

Which brings us back to the whole tech­nol­o­gy thing. We have a lot of things that we are throw­ing at peo­ple, a lot of pop­u­lar ideas, a lot of stuff. Cloud devops, etc., etc., etc. Cambrianly explod­ing, one might say, at an ever-faster pace. We are pro­duc­ing, evan­ge­liz­ing, talk­ing about, push­ing, try­ing to get peo­ple to adopt, and shov­ing down our own throats, new pat­terns, archi­tec­tures, cul­tures, metaphors, inter­faces. We demand of our­selves and of every­body else that they change, that they expe­ri­ence fail­ure, that they lose con­fi­dence, that they lose esteem, and that they hurt a lit­tle bit, to get to the place we want them to be.

If you’re going to do that. If you’re going to cre­ate the gap and demand that every­body cre­ate the gap, you should give them some help.

Part of it is just UX, and when I say just UX,” that’s an enor­mous thing. It’s not just design. It is not just user-cen­tered design. It is psychologically-centered design. There is a cer­tain way peo­ple work, or a cer­tain way a large por­tion of peo­ple work. And when you build a thing that demands them to suf­fer, you should make some attempt to alle­vi­ate that suf­fer­ing so they can get to the goal.

Design for effi­ca­cy. When peo­ple talk about cre­at­ing lit­tle wings in prod­ucts and cre­at­ing lit­tle step-wise ways for peo­ple to get from Point A to Point B, the rea­son you need to do that is because you need to cre­ate the expe­ri­ence of effi­ca­cy at every step of the way. And you need to build on ideas that last. (Well, you don’t need to. I think you should. I try to.)

Interfaces change, metaphors change, imple­men­ta­tions change. But the goal is still gen­er­al­ly the same, and the start­ing point is still gen­er­al­ly the same, and the end point is still gen­er­al­ly the same with almost every prod­uct. Unless you’re doing some­thing that’s actu­al­ly net new, and in my view there are very very very very few things that are actu­al­ly net new. Most of them are effi­cien­cies. They’re bet­ter ways of achiev­ing the same result. If that’s the case, then that new ways of achiev­ing the result does­n’t neces­si­tate throw­ing out an entire frame­work, an entire idea, an entire pat­tern. It just says throw out the parts of it that could be done bet­ter. Then you can pro­vide a men­tal bridge for peo­ple to get form where they start­ed to where you’d like them to end up.

Instead of cre­at­ing dis­con­ti­nu­ities in expe­ri­ence, you should be fill­ing dis­con­ti­nu­ities in expe­ri­ence. Instead of say­ing Abandon this, adopt this,” say, Abandon this and do this next thing.” And then do this oth­er next thing, and this oth­er next thing, and do this oth­er next thing, all of which are lit­tle steps on the way to a broad­er end.

And cre­ate com­mu­ni­ty. I have expe­ri­ence with open-source. I also have a lot of expe­ri­ence with not ever touch­ing open-source. I’ve been on both sides of that line. On both sides of that line, what I’ve found is if you’re will­ing to pro­vide who­ev­er you’re serv­ing or who­ev­er you’re build­ing for a way for them to help them­selves and each oth­er that’s built into what you’re doing. Built into the prod­uct, built into the ser­vice, built into the method. Then you don’t nec­es­sar­i­ly have to be the best at design­ing and UX and fill­ing all the gaps, because they’re going to do it them­selves. They can’t do it by them­selves. They can only do it togeth­er.

Remove fric­tion. All fric­tion. Friction is gen­er­al­ly unnec­es­sary. A lit­tle fric­tion is inevitable. A lot of fric­tion is nev­er nec­es­sary. Again, unless you’re doing some­thing that’s real­ly real­ly real­ly real­ly net new, which is rare.

And break bar­ri­ers. Every time you cre­ate a gap or dis­con­ti­nu­ity or require some­thing to make a leap, you’re erect­ing a bar­ri­er, which again I believe is gen­er­al­ly unnec­es­sary. Because every­thing we build. All these ideas, all these pat­terns, archi­tec­tures, ways of doing things, we’re all try­ing to get to the same end result, that looks some­thing like this in some­one’s head.

A woman, backlit by the sun, with arms raised in success

That’s it. Thanks.

Further Reference

Aneel's home page.

Slides for this presentation at Slideshare.


Help Support Open Transcripts

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider supporting the project monthly at Patreon or once via Square Cash, or even just sharing the link. Thanks.