Translator: Ana Joldes Reviewer: Robert Tucker
Life is about choice:
what to eat, what to read, whom to vote for,
but also what to buy, and sometimes where to live.
We cannot always choose in life.
But when we do, we generally consider ourselves very good choosers.
We stop, we think, we ponder the pros and cons of every single option,
and then finally we choose.
What I'm going to be trying to do today,
is to change the way in which you think about your own ability to take decisions,
decisions that really go to the best interest of yourself.
We just had a break, just a few minutes ago,
and there were two tables where biscuits and fruit were served.
Those of you who approached table A consumed on average 25% more fruit,
than those who approached table B.
Is it just a coincidence? Of course it is not.
It happens all the time.
We ran an experiment.
We played on the display of the chocolate and the fruit on the two tables.
We tried to induce consumption of fruit on table A
versus the consumption of chocolate on table B.
And that's what happened.
Do you start questioning your ability to take free decisions,
decisions that go to your best interest in your life?
If not, I have another illustration for you.
You just met your doctor, and it seems you have to go through surgery.
It is not a good decision
and before giving consent you would like to ask your doctor
how many probabilities of success you have.
The doctor knows the answer, and he can tell you that:
A. 90% of the patients who go through it are going to be okay,
or he could tell you that B. 10% of them are going to face complications.
If he chooses option A, around 70% of us will accept it.
But if he says B, only 35% will accept it.
Do you start doubting about your ability to make good choices?
Perhaps.
What I'm trying to illustrate today,
comes directly from the behavioural sciences:
psychology, but also behavioural economics
and some aspects from neurosciences.
And what all these disciplines are suggesting us,
is that we are not as rational as we believe.
They are questioning our ability to make good decisions in life.
What is behind the mechanism I just showed you in the break example,
but also in the doctor one?
It is called framing effect.
It basically says, that every single time we make a decision in life,
what is around us plays some role.
In particular, context matters -- remember that. Context matters.
What about this graph?
This graph portrays several European countries.
And we have two groups: we have the green countries, with a very low rate,
and some other group of countries, more significant, with a very high rate.
How can we explain such a difference?
We're talking about organ donations.
In some countries, the green countries, you are not a donor, unless you opt in.
You choose to become one.
You have to do something to become an organ donor,
if something happens to you.
But in the blue countries, you are actually a donor,
unless you opt out.
It's exactly the reverse.
The mechanism behind this is called power of inertia.
Yes, we are cognitively lazy, we don't like to choose.
We tend to stick to a predetermined position,
and that means that default matters.
I still have a mechanism to show you,
it is called social pressure, and you know it very well.
We all know that when we spend time with other peers,
we change our behaviour.
We tend to adjust to the behaviour of the group:
we drink more, we eat more, we can even do more gym,
if the people around us do so.
That means that social context matters too.
All what I'm trying to illustrate to you today,
shows that, in reality, we rely every single day on mental shortcuts.
We get shortcuts to decide, to act, and to survive.
We just have too many decisions to take, right?
The bottom line is that we think much less than we think we think.
This is disruptive.
And some people are smiling, even laughing,
some of you are not, because this is disruptive.
It is potentially disruptive for our own understanding of our own being,
but also for our understanding of society.
This is disruptive, and as it is often the case,
when it comes to new discoveries,
these new discoveries can be used for good or for bad.
You won't be surprised to hear that marketers learned about
how to use our mental shortcuts many years ago.
And what they developed are cognitive traps.
We know cognitive traps,
these are mechanisms that try to exploit our mental shortcuts
in order to reach us, in order to steer our actions,
to sell stuff we don't need,
and to steer us into a direction we are not necessarily aware of.
Did you ever wonder why in IKEA, you have to follow a set path?
You can follow it, you can always opt out, right?
But if you do, you're going to get lost. And many of you did. As I did.
Why so? Here is a default, but at the same time there's also framing.
Both mechanisms are at stake and the objective is very clear.
To bring you through all the shop.
You're going to see the shop as you watch and browse the catalogue,
exactly in the same way.
Sometimes marketers go even further
to encourage kids to order the full menu when they go to a fast food.
They give them 'free' toys. Wow, they catch the kids too.
And sometimes companies even pay for the special display that kids can reach,
in order to buy their products.
But, of course, kids themselves are not consumers.
But we all know, that kids can be extremely persuasive
when it is about driving family consumption.
What about our online experience?
We spend more time with a computer, than with people these days.
What is social media using to capture our attention?
You won't be surprised to hear they're using our cognitive and mental shortcuts,
they do it all the time.
What's the goal? To make us click. That's what generates revenue.
And in order to do so, they don't hesitate to use bait-click techniques:
weird pictures you see, and you really want to click,
and we all do click -- not much information there, but the goal is clear.
All that these ideas have in common, and all that these uses have in common
is to exploit our mental shortcuts. It is pretty clear.
And it is legitimate to ask ourselves, whether society,
and, in particular, public authorities, should not react.
Isn't it the duty of public authorities to protect us
from this exploitative use of mental shortcuts?
To give you an example: you're about to buy a flight ticket online,
and the airline used to offer you a lot of extra services
like insurance or extra legroom,
and usually when they do so, they pre-check,
they choose those options for you.
Why do they do so? Of course you know -- power of inertia.
You're not going to uncheck the box, and if you try to uncheck the box,
it will be complicated.
You will have to browse down and to identify this little hidden option:
'No insurance, I don't want it.'
Now, this practice, being considered to be exploitative,
was prohibited by the European Union.
They can no longer do it.
You are going to be the one checking the box if you really need the service.
Another example:
You're in Paris, and you're looking for a café.
'Café in Paris' -- that's what they're going to type in, and that's what you get.
These are the results.
But what about this little charming café you heard about,
but didn't really show up there?
Yes, that café could not afford to pay for any kind of fees
to appear on the top of the list.
What the European Union is asking Google today,
is to somehow help us, by showing alternative search engines,
that will enable us to find exactly that little café in Paris.
It is pretty clear what all those illustrations have in common.
They share this effort at somehow limiting the possibility
of using mental shortcuts to a bad purpose.
And this is the time for action, perhaps.
It is time to wonder whether we cannot all learn about those practices.
And perhaps this is happening.
Just think about your employer.
If he would like to keep you fit,
he could try to steer you towards the stairs,
instead of towards the elevator, the lift.
But also cities these days, municipalities and regions,
are doing exactly that.
In order to collect better and more fines, once they've been enacted,
they can send letters like this one:
'Dear Miss Fastdriver, we would like to remind you
to pay your fine for excess speed.
Most of your fellows already paid their fines.'
Social pressure in action -- you belong to the 5% who didn't.
Wow, this will increase, and it does increase all the time,
the amount of people who are going to pay their fine.
Other examples include the possibility of sometimes using footprints
which are on the floor to lead you to go towards the trash bin,
because these will reduce the cost for society to collect waste.
And what about texts? We receive texts all the time, it's pretty intrusive,
but it's a way to remind you to do, perhaps, positive things,
like saving for yourself,
or sometimes to pay and to give money to charities.
More and more countries around the world
are getting very interested in such an approach. Why?
The appeal is clear. Most of these applications are cheap.
It doesn't cost much to implement them.
But, of course, the best part of it is that they are choice preserving.
They let you opt out all the time.
If you want to take the lift instead of the stairs you can do it.
If you want to take the biscuit, you can do it --
and many of you did, I know it so.
What about the flaws?
There's a big legitimacy issue.
Don't you think you're better placed than anyone else
to think about your interest? Probably you are.
And what about ethical issues?
Don't you think you should be informed, when somebody is trying to trick you?
Perhaps you do.
And there's also a further flaw, if we follow this approach too closely,
We might give up our ability,
ask our government to intervene when it's needed,
with more severe actions.
At a time when our rationality seems to be compromised, or at least questioned,
we should really wonder what we are going to be doing with this.
And the answer is: We cannot do anything.
We have to act, it is pretty clear by now.
We are becoming aware of this,
and the bottom line is that no neutral design exists.
There will always be someone, who deliberately,
or without realising will be deciding for you.
This is becoming even more interesting today.
And perhaps more worrying.
In the time of big data,
our countless digital footprints can be collected,
stored and sold by data brokers.
And this happens all the time. There's an enormous potential there.
It is pretty clear. Public authorities could do the same.
Next time you smell popcorn when you walk into a movie theatre,
or you're about to sign a contract written in very small print,
or your kids are targeted by advertisers, well, you would be under their trap.
Should we be worried about this, should we be scared?
I don't think so.
The more we are exposed to these practices,
the more we talk about those practices,
the more we learn how to spot them.
They appear behind every corner, but we can learn from them --
and possibly try to act upon it.
And by doing so,
I think that our life could truly be the sum of our own choices.
Thank you.
(Applause)