3 ms·

Yes he does rub technie people the wrong way, but I think it's more widely a growing didain of Nudge theory and these guys in other places like UX conferences a

Yes he does rub technie people the wrong way, but I think it's more widely a growing didain of Nudge theory and these guys in other places like UX conferences after a lot of wasted time from these ideas - they just don't pan out in practice in the long term. I don't have a solely tech background and once believed quite staunchly and with excitement in Rorys ideas. As commented elsewhere, they did not work out for me, it turned out the mimetic nature of humans is useful - to avoid loss, and lost experience (which accumulates greater costs over time). Things like nudges, these ideas, these one trick examples - they are all individual, one shot. The problem is, if you trick someone into paying twice as much for their shampoo, they have less money to spend on other things. How is it satisfying to do this? It's dark patterns with a new face. I think this applies in the positive case too. Great, something like estimating a 10 day waiting time and hitting it in 7 days makes people report on paper they are happier. When most places do this, the effect will disappear. In fact, if I have one place in my life (e.g. the dentist) where they overestimate, and one where they underestimate (doctors), I will get more annoyed at the doctors than I would have been if they both were bad at estimating. It's shifting my discontent but I'm still discontented by the fact it takes 7 days, not the difference with the estimate. This is obvious and evidence in this example from the data in England with the NHS vs the health services and their satisfaction rates in Denmark and Germany etc. It's true individual cases can have individual effects, but it's a bit like how if you provide personal tutoring for one subject, the student often falls behind in the other subjects - you are taking on a debt that is paid somewhere if you don't actually improve the actual thing or product. In a role like advertising, this is fine. If you want to improve the world, I don't think it is. Likewise if you want to improve your application in terms of retention, lying to the customers about wait time will work for one order, but not multiple. It won't actually improve retention in an AB test after a year to lie unnecessarily.

xanderlewis 2y ago
> these one trick examples - they are all individual, one shot. He would be the first to admit that this is true; it’s more of a ‘science of exceptions’ (like biology) that it is like physics or (classical) economics. > if you don't actually improve the actual thing or product The standard (and importantly, correct) answer is that the marketing/perception is the product. Marketing isn’t an extra bit of magic added at the end of a process designed to get the best out of an existing product — in many cases (and not just the obvious ones) it creates most of the value. If you’re a techie you instinctively hate this kind of thing, but that makes you no less immune to — or more aware of — its effects.

xanderlewis 2y ago

> these one trick examples - they are all individual, one shot. He would be the first to admit that this is true; it’s more of a ‘science of exceptions’ (like biology) that it is like physics or (classical) economics. > if you don't actually improve the actual thing or product The standard (and importantly, correct) answer is that the marketing/perception is the product. Marketing isn’t an extra bit of magic added at the end of a process designed to get the best out of an existing product — in many cases (and not just the obvious ones) it creates most of the value. If you’re a techie you instinctively hate this kind of thing, but that makes you no less immune to — or more aware of — its effects.