The human brain has clever ways of making sense in a noisy and random world. Behavioural Economist and researcher Daniel Kahnman presented the idea that we have two separate and distinct parts to our brain in his book .
The "fast" brain is System 1.
It is intuitive, instinctive, associative, metaphorical, automatic, impressionistic and emotional. It is in the most primitive part of our brain, the limbic system.
The "slow" brain is System 2.
It is more deliberative, and more logical and its operations require attention. It is in the most recently developed part of our brain, the prefrontal cortex.
Kahneman's theory describes that our fast system 1 brain will try to make sense of the world by arranging ideas into a pattern it has used before. Sometimes cutting corners on understanding the situation completely in order to make the idea fit the pattern.
This is important to know, as human centred designers, for two reasons.
We often target these shortcuts when we create experiences - sometimes unknowingly - but we exploit these vulnerabilities nonetheless.
We are continually using these shortcuts when we make our design decisions.
These shortcuts are also known as cognitive biases.
There are more than 170, System 1 "shortcuts" and quite a clever fella called has arranged them into this compelling set of problems & strategies. It's useful because he turns them around and focuses on the problems that each bias is working to correct.
Buster outlines four main problems our brains have. He then goes on to define 19 strategies that our system 1 brains have developed to work around these problems
| Problem | Strategies |
|---|---|
| Too much information - We have limited attention to give, so we filter lots of things out | Repetition, Bizarreness, Changes, Confirmation, Flaws in others |
| Not enough memory - There's not enough space in our brains to store everything we comes across so we find ways to edit things down | Editing memories down, Generalising, Keeping an example, Using external memory |
| Not enough time - Or attention at our disposal to get everything that needs doing done, so we jump to conclusions with what we have and move ahead | Not enough time, Nearest thing is best, Finish what we started, Maintain the status quo, Keep options open, Nearest thing is best |
| Not enough meaning - We have limited capacity to understand how things fit together, so we create stories to make sense of everything. | Patterns, Generalities, Easier problems, Mind reading, Our current minds |
So how do we work with this in our day to day?
The evidence we take into our design process has a huge impact on the outcome. As designers we're expert in seeking out relevant research to fuel our design process. That may be critiquing our competitors, it may be reading the expert reviews of industry insiders or technologists that we admire, it may also be our watchful eye on the constraints and opportunities of the platforms we're working on. Whatever your "go to" is for research, be more mindful of the evidence you bring in – it's the fuel for the design process. It makes a substantial difference to the finished experience.
Using your knowledge of Cognitive Biases to critique interactions and products can give some useful additional insight. Helping you to make better choices about the experiences we create.
One straightforward way to get started is using the strategies to critique the evidence you're bringing into your process. You'll need this and this .
Critical Competitor Analysis
Identify your set of competitors – list them out and articulate "why" they are there. For example - ³ÉÈËÂÛ̳ iPlayer is a video streaming service.
Choose a feature or interaction from the competitor. Write it in the centre of your worksheet
Using the Cognitive Bias deck, start to discuss which problem & strategy it might be appealing to.
Write the "strategy" it is targeting in the top quadrant.
Discuss any consequences of this for the user. Note those in the "positive consequences" on the left and the "challenging ones" on the right
Ideate around alternatives and note them down in the bottom quadrant.
1. As a group discuss the potential for the "alternative" interactions or features or products.
The impact of targeting biases
Why does this matter for our audience? If these shortcuts are there to "help people out" aren't we just helping them to get to the content they need more smoothly? This is a hotly contested debate, with interactions being labelled as dark UX. But it's not as simple as that. Tristan Harris (from the Centre for Humane Tech) cites this quote from EO Wilson.
The real problem of humanity is the following: we have paleolithic emotions; medieval institutions; and god-like technology. - E.O. Wilson
By palaeolithic emotions he's referencing our primitive limbic system - the part of our brain that controls our fight flight freeze responses. The part that controls our system 1 thinking. The part that is too instinctive and too fast for us to bypass with our conscious decision making brain.
By medieval institutions he is describing organisations whose motivation are primarily about driving revenue. Organisation with a hierarchy that serves the few at the top - not the many at the bottom.
The most significant part is that we are doing this by creating Godlike interactions.
Godlike because they are changing the way our brains work.
We know that we are forming new neural pathways based on prompts from our smart devices. Prompts that change the shape of our brains. That change way we think.
What we do need to do is pause and be mindful of this God like power
The lean, fail fast iterative model has consequences. As designers we need to believe if there's a benefit to a human. Or is it just a benefit to the business?
Imagine if we could create experiences that stop this sense of overwhelm. Imagine creating an experience that helps us feel guided and informed, enables us to be active in the issues we care about and ultimately build skills like empathy, fluency of ideas, creativity.
All the things that make us humans become more human.
Note
These ideas are an exploration into alternative ways of of creating human and society centred experiences. They are rough prototypes and experiments and would benefit from creative minds tearing them apart and iterating on them - We'd love to hear where you take them.
