尼尔·艾尔（Nir Eyal）：争取代理，言论自由和监管蒂克托克（Tiktok）和希望我们的孩子的希望-E227

“在心理学文献中，我们将自己的能力信念信念非常重要。我们将其称为内部和一个外部控制源。我们知道，这种简单的差异，这种相信自己的生活是由外界的环境控制的人，与那些相信自己内心的事物所控制的人的生活相比，这些人的身份几乎都在自己的代理机构中所代理的人，这是您的代理机构的人，这是您的代理机构，这是您的代理机构，这是您的代理机构的人。可以想象的指标。 -尼尔·艾尔（Nir Eyal）

尼尔·艾尔（Nir Eyal）心理，技术和商业的交集在斯坦福大学商学院和斯坦福大学的Hasso Plattner设计学院担任市场营销讲师 NIR自2003年以来与他人共同创立并出售了两家科技公司，并被麻省理工学院技术评论（MIT Technology Review）称为“养生技术”。彭博商业周刊写道：“尼尔·艾尔（Nir Eyal）是习惯的家伙。想了解如何让应用程序用户一次又一次地回来？那是你的男人。”他是两本畅销书籍的作者，他们迷人：如何建立形成习惯的产品和in Indistractable：如何控制您的注意力并选择生活。 Indistractable获得了良好的好评，赢得了杰出的文学作品奖，并被亚马逊评为年度最佳商业和领导力书籍Audible年度最佳个人发展书籍之一地球和邮件称为“ 2019年最佳商业书籍” Indistractable。除了在Nirandfar.com，NIR的写作还在《纽约时报》， 《哈佛商业评论》 ， 《时代》杂志和心理学上。 NIR投资于改善用户生活的习惯化产品。他过去的一些投资包括Eventbrite （NYSE： EB ）， Anchor.fm （由Spotify获得）， Kahoot！ （ kahoot-me.ol ） ，帆布，居住， 产品狩猎，马可·波罗，字节食品，焦点伴侣，动力保健，明智的应用和桑尼赛德。 NIR就读于斯坦福大学商学院和埃默里大学。

Jeremy Au：（00:29）嗨，Nir，很高兴能参加演出。您是习惯上的出色思想领袖，也是如何控制作家，研究人员以及创始人自己的注意力。所以我很想你介绍自己。 Nir Eyal：（00:43）当然。因此，感谢您拥有我。我叫Nir Eyal，我是行为设计​​师。因此，我帮助公司养成通过健康习惯改善人们生活的习惯和服务。我是两本书的作者。第一个称为“钩：如何建立习惯形成产品”。这讨论了Facebook，Twitter，Instagram，WhatsApp，Slack，Tiktok等硅谷巨头的秘密，并使这些产品如何使我们吸引我们的创始人，所有行业的产品领导者，轻浮，不仅是游戏媒体和社交媒体，还可以使人们迷恋健康的终身女性的心理学。因此，我与许多金融科技和教育产品和健康服务的公司合作，在业务模型取决于重复客户参与的任何地方，客户将从这些健康的习惯中受益。这是我的第一本书。我的第二本书被称为Indistractable：如何控制您的注意力并选择生活。这一切都是关于我们如何在生活中养成良好习惯的全部内容，这是关于我们如何破坏不良习惯，我们也可以吃蛋糕并吃掉它。我相信，我们可以通过确保我们可以利用它来养成健康的习惯，并破坏我们经常会导致我们分心的坏习惯，从而通过确保我们能够从技术中获得最好的方式来利用一种服务于我们而不是伤害我们的方式。 Jeremy Au：（01:59）您从事顾问的职业生涯，后来开始了自己的业务。您的经验扩展到书籍。那么，您能否分享更多关于这些经历在职业生涯开始时如何影响您的信息？尼尔·艾尔（Nir Eyal）：（02:15）我一直很喜欢写作，但是我从来没有这样做，因为很多原因。但是当我大学毕业时，我决定去咨询，我在波士顿咨询集团工作了几年，并讨厌它。这是一个非常困难的经历。好吧，我喜欢它一段时间，老板改变了。然后我开始讨厌它。我实际上在书中谈论了这一点，谈到了我在那里时波士顿咨询小组的样子。我记得那是一种非常困难的文化。预计您将24/7全天候可用，不断分散注意力，不断地向各个方向拉。我在书中谈到了这种转变，讲述了它们如何成为一个令人难以置信的工作场所，他们从成为一家始终被评为具有可怕工作文化的非常困难的地方的公司，现在确实是一个始终被评为美国最佳工作场所之一的地方。他们这样做了很多。因此，在BCG的经历教会了我很多。它告诉我，我不想在一家大公司和其他公司工作。这给了我一些我用来创办第一家业务的技能，即太阳能业务，我成立了一家公司，该公司后来被一家私募股权公司收购。然后我去了斯坦福大学的商学院。当我在那里时，我创办了另一家公司。该公司是由克莱纳·珀金斯（Kleiner Perkins）制成的。没关系，这是一个Aquahire。但是那家公司在游戏和广告领域。这给了我这个有利的位置，即从2006年到2016年在硅谷看到许多这些公司在正确的位置。我们今天想到的公司，随着这些世界变化的公司，我有了这个前排席位，以了解它们在改变消费者行为方面是如此出色。如果这些创办这些公司的人是我的朋友，我的客户，其中一些，我的同学，我可以问他们有关他们如何做的问题。是什么使这些产品如此粘？当我在考虑我的脖子公司会做什么时，我知道我必须建立它。我知道这甚至是在2012年，当我的第二家公司被收购时，我可以说我们正在改变。当我们从台式机，笔记本电脑到移动设备，可穿戴设备以及现在的听觉设备时。随着界面缩减并最终消失，习惯将变得越来越重要。因为只是我们所谓的这些外部触发器没有触发的房地产，所以这些视觉通知告诉他们该怎么做。当您有一个大桌面屏幕时，很容易做到这一点。但是，如果您在主屏幕上有一个小手机，该怎么办。如果消费者不记得使用您的产品，那么您的产品也可能不存在。因此，您必须养成消费者的习惯。如果缩小您的产品的相关性不大。因此，当我在那里看着有关如何建立习惯形成产品的书在哪里？我没有找到这样的书。因此，我开始研究，写作，与这些公司的朋友以及我在斯坦福大学的前教授，并在斯坦福图书馆度过了很多时间，研究了有关建立习惯形成产品的学术文献。我开始为此写博客。几年后，Shiv伸出援手，他说，我一直在阅读您的博客，我真的很喜欢。我喜欢您开发的这个迷人的模型，让我们一起教一堂课。因此，他邀请我在GSB的斯坦福大学任教。然后，后来，我搬到了斯坦福大学的Hasso Plattner设计学院，然后通过那本我的第一本书迷上了这本书，我开始讲话，实际上进行咨询和投资，这是写书中最有利可图的部分，那是我很感兴趣，人们给我带来了很多兴趣，人们称我为我，我们使用了您的模型。你怎么认为？而且，我每年每周与数百家公司进行交谈。因此，我每周与四家公司进行了交谈。因此，每年超过200家公司。然后偶尔，我发现一家公司认为这是一个令人惊叹的模型的公司，我可以投资吗？因此，从职业上讲，这确实是我正在寻找公司挂钩模型。如果他们会拥有我，如果他们认为我会有所帮助，那我将投资。到目前为止，那真是太好了。到目前为止，我已经投资了35家公司，这是6个独角兽。非常好的命中率。因此，我将继续这样做。这就是我迄今为止的专业故事。我希望这能回答您的问题。 Jeremy Au：（06:13）那么您是如何去做的，决定成为作家的决定呢？因为思考这些问题是一回事，所以成为用户或设计师是另一回事，但是坐下来进行研究并将其作为论文汇总在一起。这是怎么发生的？尼尔·艾尔（Nir Eyal）：（06:28）因此，我的指导动机一直是遵循我的好奇心来刮擦自己的东西。写我需要的书，当我一生中遇到问题时，我会和妻子谈谈。我会和我的好朋友谈谈。如果我没有得到令人满意的答案，我会阅读有关它的书籍。在10分中有9次，答案已经在某个地方。有人会研究这种模式，因为他们以前遇到了问题。但是，每五年大约每五年，我就会读到一个有关该主题的所有书籍的问题，这并不能解决我的问题。因此，这就是我的第一本书，我找不到任何专门解决您如何建立习惯形成的书？关于如何养成个人习惯的情况。但这不是我想要的。我想找到一个我如何设计产品的资源，您要构建人们使用的产品，因为他们不想因为他们必须这样做，所以我在挂钩之前没有找到这样的书。所以我决定自己写。我读了很多关于重点，分心和注意力的书。他们都表示对表面水平的分析，这都是技术的错。你是受害者。好吧，停止使用电子邮件，停止检查社交媒体。好，谢谢。这就是只有拥有任期的教授才能给予的建议，因为大多数人都失业。如果我们停止使用技术，那是愚蠢的。而且我不想成为受害者，我想使用这些工具，我想使用这些技术，它们很棒。但是，一种使用这些工具以一种为我服务而不是感觉自己为它们服务的方式。因此，当这些技术都没有起作用（顺便说一句，我尝试了本书中的许多技术时，我都进行了数字排毒，我尝试了数字极简主义。猜猜是什么，它行不通。它不起作用，因为它就像是一种时尚的饮食。如果您不了解更深的心理学，那么它不会持续很长时间。因此，我真的很想深入了解为什么我们首先会分心的原因。坦率地说，这一直是我为何写作的原因，这一直是我的核心动力，我很高兴我出售了一百万本书的书，写这些东西的真正乐趣是解决我自己的问题。而且我有很多问题。因此，能够学习足以为自己构建的东西很有趣。顺便说一句，这也是我一直向企业家提供的建议，这是一个巨大的竞争优势。与建造一些无定形的相反，这要好得多，您的成功率将更高。如果您要建造自己想要的东西，至少您会因为市场的市场规模而失败，因为您的市场规模是市场的。因此，您可能在产品上可能不会成功。但是谁在乎呢？归根结底，您可以建立产品，因为您认为它需要在世界范围内存在。这就是为什么我也写书的原因，因为我需要正在写的解决方案。 Jeremy Au：（09:09）当我阅读您的书时，这让我想起了另一本名为Salt，Sugar和Fat的书。他谈到了食品行业，以及如何进行数十亿美元的研发以及制作工作，薯片和普林格斯以及所有这些美味的东西。但是坦率地说，在许多方面都无法抗拒。而且我认为从我认为框架的角度来看，框架是非常大开眼界的，而且它可以如何发挥作用。我肯定会注意到更多的习惯循环。最有趣的是，我认为有很多悲观主义？我认为这是您的第二本书。但是我认为人们觉得您投降。就像我在Tik Tok上一样，我正在滚动，仅此而已。我试图变得更好。而且，如果他们试图变得更好，我的笑话是他们最终去了其他地方。他们在Reddit上或在Facebook上抱怨它被卡在Tiktok上，这可以说是更健康的版本。那么，您如何看待这种情况？您是否觉得随着世界继续参加越来越多的习惯形成要求的军备竞赛？而且确实感觉有些权力定律，甚至是动态的创新权。对于人类的重点和智慧，您认为最终状态是什么？尼尔·艾尔（Nir Eyal）：（10:20）好吧，我认为当今世界上正在发生分叉，正如您所说，有些人让他们的时间，注意力和饮食受到他人的控制。有些人站起来说：“不，我会自己决定。因此，我们必须获得这项技能，进步的代价是事情变得更好”。我们还要其他方式吗？我读了迈克尔·莫斯斯（Michael Mosses）的书，感谢他的写作。他是一位出色的作家。但这很大程度上是受害者的心态，而没有解决中心问题，这是替代的。我们是否想回到一个稀缺且不美味的世界？不，我想要Cheetos。可口的。是的。我想一直吃吗？是的，但这并不意味着我必须一直吃它们。我曾经肥胖，我在当天吃了很多奇特，很多甜甜圈和很多不健康的食物。而且非常容易。我曾经一直这样做，以责怪我们外面的事情。这都是食物的错。这是社交媒体的错。这是电视错误。我们外面的所有这些力量都是所谓的怪物。那不是很有生产力。因为总是有分心。分心并不是什么新鲜事。没有什么突然创造的。我们知道。 2500年前，我们谈到了这个问题。在Cheetos之前的2500年，在互联网之前，人们抱怨做以后后悔的事情。因此，这不是一个新问题。因此，成为责备不是正确的解决方案。许多人采取的另一个途径是成为所谓的Shamer，Shamer不会责怪自己外面的事情。他们羞愧自己说，我一定会被打破。我的性格上瘾。我的注意力很短。我没有诊断出多动症，我是一个悲伤，认真的，你叫它，他们以某种方式认为他们被打破了。但这也行不通。因为相信您以某种方式被打破了，因此会引起这些不舒服的感觉，然后我们尝试逃脱。猜猜什么，更多的分心。那么当我临床时？我不是临床上肥胖的，因为食物很美味。我本来希望像迈克尔·莫斯（Michael Moss）一样怪罪快餐公司。正是这些食品公司让我们吃这些东西。他们实际上是将食物推下我们的喉咙。不，这不是为什么我肥胖的原因。你知道为什么我肥胖，因为我正在吃自己的感受。当我无聊的时候，当我孤独时，我会吃饭。当我为自己刚刚吃的多少感到羞耻时，我会吃饭。因此，羞辱自己不是正确的答案。指责他人不是正确的答案。正确的答案不是要成为责备者或Shamer。您应该是索赔人。索赔人做什么？索赔人声称责任，不是因为他们的感受。催生那些感受。这是一个非常重要的点。大多数人没有意识到您无法控制自己的冲动。您无法控制自己的冲动，吃垃圾食品，检查社交媒体的冲动，分心的冲动，您无法控制这些冲动。比您控制打喷嚏的冲动更多。如果您感到打喷嚏的冲动，为时已晚。您已经感到这种冲动。您对这种冲动无能为力。您可以做的事情是，您如何应对这种冲动。当您感到打喷嚏的冲动时。你们整个人都打喷嚏并让他们生病吗？不，那不是正确的事情。不是这个。你不会打喷嚏别人。您拿出一个手帕，遮住脸。这是负责任的事情。责任一词源于情况。因此，索赔人声称对他们将以应对轰动的方式做的事情负责。大多数令人分心的人感到不舒服时，当他们感到无聊，孤独，不确定的焦虑时，他们想逃脱。我们以某种方式告诉社会上，感觉不好。我们一直在告诉这个消息。如果您感到丝毫疼痛或不适，请快速服用药丸。找到某种解决方案，尽一切努力摆脱不适，胡说八道。不适是一种条件，高表现者​​学习如何应对不适。这是我的书中的一个重要意义，对我来说是一个启示，它帮助了我一生的每个可能的方面，我了解到人类的动力不是追求快乐和避免痛苦的追求。人类的动力是一件事，一件事是逃避不适的愿望。所有人类的动力，如果您看着人​​的大脑内部，我们从神经中所做的一切都是消除不适，即使是对感觉良好的愿望也是如此。即使追求愉悦，渴望，渴望以及所有这些事情在心理上都是不稳定的。那么这是什么意思？如果所有人类动力都是由逃避不适的愿望驱动的，那么就必须意味着时间管理是痛苦管理。我再说一次。时间管理是疼痛管理，我会走得更远。管理是疼痛管理。货币管理是疼痛管理，因为所有人类行为都是由逃避不适的愿望驱动的。因此，我们需要感到不适​​。我们需要意识到感觉不好。这是关于我们将如何应对这种不适。但是我们别无选择。我们要坐在这里说食品公司，请让您的食物不那么美味，因为我不想一直吃。 Netflix使您的演出变得不那么有趣。我发现自己想看他们。苹果，您能否使手机降低用户友好？来吧，这太荒谬了。我们不断地责备和羞辱我们不会到达任何地方，我们必须开始对我们的回应负责。这是我前面提到的唯一途径，这是我之前提到的，他们将允许他们的时间，关注和生活的人受到其他人的控制，而拒绝的人则不会控制自己的注意力，我将控制自己的生活，因为我将变得不可分割。 Jeremy Au：（16:14）感谢您的分享，热爱您讨论的内容，人类状况并呼唤有关行业实践的胡说八道，以及我们必须做的痛苦管理。几年前，我也曾经肥胖。我觉得我的解决方案是在谈论希腊哲学，就像万神殿一样，我朝另一个方向奔跑，我向健身之神祈祷。我用脚投票通过在Instagram上订阅健身和健康，将面包屑留给了有关健康，健身和营养的新闻通讯。因此，我用尽了方向来寻找Noom，这是另一种习惯，形成产品，Fitbit Apple Watch等。因此，它确实感觉像是可以分散的。我正在读它，实际上是您掌握自己的中立空间，但几乎感觉像是最两极分化的？从某种意义上说，您要么在快餐业工作，要么是在运动，健身和个人健康行业崇拜。尼尔·艾尔（Nir Eyal）：（17:16）没有必要的辩护律师，食品行业有很多坏事，技术行业需要将他们付诸实践。我并不是说我们应该使用这些东西，也不完全相反。您应该，绝对要注意如何使用这些东西。我反对的是说是政府需要为我解决这个问题，为什么政府不只是通过法律来规范这些问题？让我们调节快餐。让我们调节社交媒体。让我们调节这些东西。看，当政府中的天才掌握行业时会发生什么，他们将其搞砸了。就是这样。去欧洲，尝试使用互联网。将这些该死的按钮推到Frickin一百万次，让您使用本应保护人们的GDPR法规的网页，除了让我们惹恼我们的地狱之外。因此，不是每次他们弄乱它。现在，在保护儿童方面有良好的调节空间。绝对地。我们绝对需要保护儿童。当人们在病理上上瘾时。绝对，我们也需要保护那些人，因为他们是不在声音或思想中的人。但是对于我们其他人。这是个人责任问题。我们必须自己做些事情。我们要坐在这里说什么，我要等快餐使他们的食物不那么美味？我等待着使他们的产品变得不那么有趣。这不会发生。我们有什么选择？因此，与责备和羞辱相比，我们需要声称，我们需要开始索赔，这可能意味着不使用许多这些产品。我不会吃很多食物，因为我知道它们真的是对的。但这并不意味着我要他们被禁止。我想如果需要，我应该可以选择吃twink和cheetos。我想生活在那个世界，就像在哪里，如果我想抽烟，我可以选择不这样做，因为我知道这很不健康。而且，坦率地说，谁不知道香烟不是吗？就像，这让我感到困惑，为什么今天有人抽烟？地球上的任何人或几乎任何人真的不知道这对您不利吗？但这不是我要告诉你你不能抽烟。这是个人选择。我不会成为那个我们应该永远禁止所有香烟的人，我认为这会有点极端。但是我确实认为，对于那些无法做出正确决定的人来说，有监管的空间。 Jeremy Au：（19:22）很棒。因为，我们几乎看到了这两个趋势。我们看到新西兰禁止了子孙后代的香烟。然后，我们还看到了大麻的合法化。穿过边界。尼尔·艾尔（Nir Eyal）：（19：34）这很荒谬，因为我们知道大麻，吸烟大麻的人中有10％的人患有大麻使用障碍。从字面上看，他们沉迷于大麻，而大麻比吸烟差，因为它没有过滤器。那是关节没有香烟的过滤器。因此，关于井井有条的争议，您不会像抽烟那样抽大麻，而是每个关节。关节的致癌物比香烟多。因此，具有讽刺意味的是，我们想同时我们要调节社交媒体的同时调节大麻似乎有些愚蠢。 Jeremy Au：（20:08）如果只有社交媒体是共同的。尼尔·艾尔（Nir Eyal）：（20:12），顺便说一下，我确实认为有一些监管的空间。例如，我认为，如果外国政府要进来并想控制《纽约时报》，我们只能说一个名叫国家的人，一些亿万富翁，某个国家会进来，说我要购买《纽约时报》，美国政府将不允许这是一个有影响力的平台。我们知道中国法律的Tik Tok某种程度上允许对该平台产生真正的影响。现在我们没有太多证据。因此，让我们确保记录清晰。但是，他们可能会令人恐惧的事实，不是因为产品一定是参与的。这是一种具有众多潜在受众的产品。因此，有监管的余地，但我认为不会受到监管的是吸引人，我们希望产品吸引人，我们希望产品以一种使我们想要使用它们的方式设计的产品，这是重点。这不是一个问题，所以我认为在这方面，这取决于我们，当涉及到您的不当影响和选举中，我们还应该调节许多其他事情，当然还有对孩子的保护，但是当涉及到基本问题时，是一种令人上瘾的。这不是那么简单。因为任何事情都可能上瘾。我们知道，任何解决疼痛的镇痛药对某人都可能上瘾。有人会沉迷于吃油漆的情况，有人沉迷于嗅探胶。有些人从字面上沉迷于饮用水，据报道，人们沉迷于对饮用水不健康的案例，这不是水过错。这是因素，成瘾的人的融合，这是一种病理。这是一种疾病。不幸的是，我们已经在这里进行了医疗，并将其他原本正常的行为道德化，以使其不是我们的问题。我检查了Tik Tok太多。我看太多了Instagram。这就是技术对我做的。你看，他们让我上瘾，这不是我的问题。这不是我的错。我对此无能为力。这是积极的有害，因此当他们不是在没有引用的情况下，他们引用了毫无疑问，成瘾是一种病理学，这是一种疾病。当您相信无能为力时，您的注意力或注意力被盗了，或者如果您相信垃圾猜测会发生什么？没什么。因为我怎么停下来，我想这里没有代理。这就是我正在与之抗争的事情。我试图告诉别人您确实有代理，您确实可以控制这一集可能是2个肥胖的人，当您开始采取一些小步骤时，首先，首先相信您有能力做些事情，您可以改变行为，您可以改变生活。您能做的最糟糕的事情是相信，我无能为力。我无能为力。 Jeremy Au：（22:58）覆盖很多。坦白说，我同意关于Tik Tok的看法。放大了，我真的很喜欢三个支柱。就像和女儿在一起一样，他们向我展示了一个内容。他们向我展示了双语笑话。然后，第三，他们向我展示了一大堆新加坡犯罪和历史剪辑。而且我在那里消耗了很多内容。我意识到的一件事是，在某个时候，我意识到，我在一个充满鬼魂的应用中。这些都是人，看起来像人类。但这是一种算法，它是一个与我说话的机器人，伪造的鬼魂，例如，这些人都可能已经死了。 Tiktok算法将继续为我提供所有这些伟大的内容。因此，就像您所说的那样，您不反对他们。您最关心的是他们习惯形成产品设计的习惯，这是对外国/国家控制方面的监管。其次，保护儿童，是您将如何调节Tiktok？尼尔·艾尔（Nir Eyal）：（23:54）因此，第一名，孩子需要特殊保护。有很多我不会让我14岁的女儿做的事情，我不会让她进入赌场开始赌博，我不会让她走进酒吧，点杜松子酒和滋补品，她还没有准备好。因此，我们有特殊的法律来保护儿童免受某些潜在有害的行为，因为他们没有声音，身心。这是第一。第二，在病理上上瘾。因此，我一直在提倡多年来，那些认识真正上瘾的人的公司，现在我喜欢使用它的人。我说的是病理性上瘾的人，现在，这是什么样的？我希望公司要做的是制定滥用政策，他们应该有某种数字说，如果您使用我们的产品，“ X”小时数，假设30个小时的事情要组成数字。如果您每周这么多小时使用该产品，则会引发一个警报，您会收到一条消息，我们看到您正在以某种方式使用它，这可能表明您正在为成瘾而苦苦挣扎。我们可以帮忙吗？不一定要把您踢开，顺便说一句，这并不是所有人的人口，真正的极端用户，这不是，我喜欢每天30分钟或其他任何东西。这是真正上瘾的人，将其与伤害他们的地步。因此，这是我认为公司确实承担特殊责任的地方，因为他们知道您使用的是多少。酒精制造商。他们不知道，他们怎么知道酗酒者是谁？他们怎么能伸出援手说，你喝得太多了。他们不能。但是，这些科技公司，游戏公司，社交媒体公司知道，他们拥有可识别的个人信息，以确切知道您每天在他们的平台上花费多少小时。因此，我相信他们应该以3-5％的最高百分比伸出援手，并说，您可能正在为成瘾而苦苦挣扎，我们该如何帮助？您可以使用这些工具吗？限制您的用途，这是如何使用的方法，顺便说一句，今天我们的手机，我在设备上有此限制，例如，由于我们先前讨论的原因，在我的手机上限制了这一点，但是例如，Instagram是非常粘的产品，我真的很喜欢使用Instagram，但是我有这个时间限制，一天的时间限制，您的手机告诉我，您要接近30分钟的30分钟。太好了，效果很好。但是，如果您是花费小时数小时的人，我认为该公司有责任与您联系，看看他们如何提供帮助，并可能建议其中一些资源或咨询等。我认为，这第三类是与不当的影响有关的。因此，在许多方面，我相信CCP比我信任的Google或美国的这些科技公司要少得多，因为我知道他们的激励措施是什么。我知道Google的激励措施是什么。我知道亚马逊的激励措施是什么。我知道什么是元激励措施，只是想赚钱。我真的相信所有这些政治垃圾，他们希望他们能忽略，他们只想赚钱。因此，我认为这就是我们不知道他们动机的公司而吓到我的。我们不知道幕后是什么。有机会不适当的影响，Tiktok所要做的就是向您展示饲料中的更多内容，这种算法至少喂养了Pro-China内容的饲料，并抑制了一些抗议活动。我们知道他们肯定在中国内部做到了这一点。如果您需要更多证据，则在中国禁止美国制造的技术。您不能在中国使用Facebook，不能使用Google，不能使用YouTube，并且已经禁止使用这些。不知何故，他们的技术在这里没有被禁止。这很奇怪。那是一些危险信号。我们已经在美国看到了这一点。我们已经知道，在州一级，许多市政当局在政府发布的电话上禁止Tiktok。而且我认为，我希望并提倡更多的监管，即使不是完全禁令，我不确定禁令，或者至少围绕无法做的事情进行调节。因为这一切都可以在阴影中发生，所以它可能已经发生了。而且我们不会知道，因为要知道的零透明度，他们是否将手指放在算法上以某种方式或另一种方式影响内容，所以我们不知道。 Jeremy Au：（27:48）因此，我认为您绝对会看到政府在规范不当影响方面的角色。用于使用和滥用政策。您是否认为该行业可以实现自我监管的动态？或者，这也需要政府干预或激励才能实现这一目标吗？尼尔·艾尔（Nir Eyal）：（28:03）是的，我一直在提倡它已有八年了，我写了一篇文章，说这是公司应该做的。非常清楚地说，我们保护儿童，我们必须保护我们其余的人，这是一个个人责任问题。因此，这是我们的95％至97％的人，因为那一小部分是这些公司应该做的。迄今为止，他们还没有做任何事情。而且我坦率地放弃了，我认为政府需要逐步使用和滥用政策，以保护超越您的产品的人们。现在，当然，该行业将说这不公平。公司，电视，报纸。谁会从《纽约时报》中告诉你，停止阅读论文，去生命。福克斯新闻（Fox News）将告诉您，您看过太多电视，去做一些生活。他们也不会告诉你。而且，他们有一点。关键是你知道。有线电视公司，《纽约时报》，至少不采用纸张格式。他们不知道新闻迷，他们真的不能休息一下。但是这些科技公司确实知道。如果您知道，我认为您有责任。因此，在这方面，我确实认为科技公司本身应该以这种方式受到监管。 Jeremy Au：（29:12）有趣的是您拥有这种真正的全球前景。 You have obviously worked across America, you work across the world, and also across Southeast Asia. So what would you say are the differences globally, in terms of the understanding, for example, one level of habit forming products, and also the next layer in terms of controlling attention and even government regulation, what are the global and regional differences you're seeing? Nir Eyal: (29:32) So it's interesting, US companies just by their very nature, are very US focused, the amount of resources that companies devote to moderation of content in some places is much greater than others. We've seen examples of that in the past, I think it's been corrected, but I don't know, I don't have an inside perspective, of really, negligence by some of these social media companies, not having moderation in place to cut off violence. We saw this happen in Myanmar. We've seen this happen in a few places now. Understand, they've really beefed up that effort to make sure that doesn't happen again. So, maybe this is part of the growing pains of a company that quickly. I think there's also different standards. So what you can say in America is very different from what you can say in Singapore. And so in Singapore, there's certain things you can't say about people's racial or ethnic origin or religious affiliation. You can absolutely say in America, but because of Singaporean law, you can't say here, and I'll tell you, I'm still struggling with this because I came to Singapore. And when I first came here, I was a free speech absolutist and thought, I was like we need to talk about this stuff. We need social debate with each other, that's how we get better. That's the public square. And I have to tell you now, I'm not so sure. I wonder if there's the United States even though it's considered the First Amendment, is the most important part of the Bill of Rights around freedom of speech. But even that is limited, there's certain speech that is not legal. You can't shout fire in a crowded theater that is illegal that is not protected speech. But in Singapore, there is speech that is also regulated that, now I think, there's some good reasons for that. Do we really need to criticize each other's race and religion? Like maybe the things that people can't change at that speech. So I'm still struggling with this. I wish I had a better answer. But it seems like from what I understand, the social media is like doing a pretty decent job of abiding by local regulation. At least I haven't seen any big mess up since Singapore, it was October of 2021, that they passed this new legislation requiring even more moderation by the social media companies. And it seems they've kept up. And so I wonder if maybe there's a lot of wisdom in encouraging debate. We want freedom of expression, we want people to talk about issues, but maybe there are certain issues that are just not worth it. Like maybe things that people can't change. Don't try and change yours. Maybe that's okay. Jeremy Au: (32:01) Yes, definitely see the precedents for that all across the world. Even in Germany, for example, there are limits on free speech that, I think it's a function of the country's history, and fears, and ideals? Nir Eyal: (32:14) That I actually disagree with. So I'm Jewish, and my grandparents were Holocaust survivors. They defend the right to deny the Holocaust. It's obviously ridiculous. It's not true. The Holocaust absolutely did happen. My grandmother will tell you, she's passed. But she can tell you all the stories about exactly what she experienced at the camps. But I do think we should allow that type of speech. Because that's the thing we can debate that. And that's going to exist in the shadows no matter what. But I wonder if you go to extreme, of course, I think what China does, in terms of banning everything that people talk about today, you can't criticize any type of government intervention. That's also ridiculous, to the point where people have to protest with white pieces of paper. And so what do they do? They banned paper. That's, obviously, ridiculous. But maybe there's a middle ground, maybe if the United States is way on one end, and China's way on the other, then maybe there's somewhere in the middle that makes sense. That is okay to not talk about in the public's right.顺便一提。 Another area that I think the US is lacks on is our libel laws, our libel and slander laws, like you can literally say anything about a pope. If you tweet something, they can say anything about you, if you're a politician. If it was in the newspaper in America that Joe Biden got abducted by aliens, and you can put that in print. And that's totally fine, doesn't have to be a shape or form, just because you're a public figure. That's something you can't do in Singapore, which also maybe there's some logic too. Maybe if you have a claim, it about should be some basis of fact, behind it. Again, I'm not arguing exactly the particulars of how the law is implemented, I think it can be abused as well. Since I've been here, my mind has been open to perhaps there are some forms of speech that shouldn't quite be so mobility. Jeremy Au: (34:02) I think accountability is a big word they use over and over again. Personal accountability versus accountability in terms of the public square versus accountability in the face of government. So why is this accountability and personal ownership important to you? Nir Eyal: (34:18) Because I think it's the point of greatest leverage. So when you assign responsibility, who should act? Whose responsibility is something? To always ask yourself who is the party that has the most leverage in changing the situation? I'll give you an analogue here. Let's say you're driving and there's a car in front of you. And that car in front of you quickly slams on the brakes for whatever reason. It quickly slam on the brakes.是谁的错？ If the car slammed in front of you, the fault is the driver in front because they quickly slammed on the brakes. They did something they should not do on highway, you don't slam on your brakes, but whose responsibility is it? The driver behind. The driver behind has to maintain distance by the car in front and if they hit the car in front of them. Guess who's going to get the ticket? It doesn't matter if the driver in front slammed on the brakes, the driver on back is responsible, and their insurance will have to pay the fine. And so this is exactly back to your question. Harp on personal accountability is because who has the easier time of fixing the situation?你做。 Pick up your phone. Read Indistractable, learn how to use these products and services in a way that serves you as opposed to us serving them. It's a bit of leverage than sitting here and waiting for the government or these companies to fix the problem. And so that's why I keep harping on it. So the takeaway here is just because something is not your fault, doesn't mean it's not your responsibility. You didn't invent these things. You didn't invent Cheetos, you didn't invent donuts. You didn't invent social media, but it is your responsibility. Jeremy Au: (35:57) It's tricky, because personal responsibility seems to be increasingly coded, right for politics, and partisanship. And at a deep level, on a personal level, everybody gets it. And I think every parent and every family and every personal conversations are pretty straightforward. Like we are accountable for how we drive, and we are accountable for how we respond to anything. It just feels like once it get out there in a one zone, two zone, three zones, out then this becomes, us versus them, if you believe in this. So why do you think that's happening from your perspective? How do we navigate that? Nir Eyal: (36:37) Well, the brain is a cognitive miser, who jumped to quick answers and easy conclusions, because that feels good. We always want easy answers. There's all ridiculous things that people believe. Because they seem right. For most of human history, people thought the world is flat, you had to really convince them even today, and you have to convince people that the world is not flat, because that requires some cognitive effort. Look, it looks flat, everything is isolated, it's flat. But you have to do an experiment, you have to take a laser and go very far away and shoot it through a little hole. And then you'll see that the laser won't go through the hole, that's very far away because of the curvature of the earth. So you have to think a little bit, you have to devise and experiment, you have to test your assumptions. And the fact is, assumptions, we're very comfortable thinking in ways that that make us look good. Nobody wants to think that wait a minute. Can I think about this? Can't I just complain?那没什么好玩的。 I don't want to think that I can do something to lose weight. I don't want to think that I could do something to change the way I interact with products and services. That can't be my fault.这很有趣。那是一个。 The second thing I think that's unique about technology specifically and social media in particular, is that these mediums telling you that it's not your fault, have a financial incentive to do so. Like where are people getting the information that technology is melting their brain? Where are they hearing that it's hijacked in the social dilemma film that was on Netflix, where we have people in the movie saying technology is hijacking your brains? Hijacking is what they did to us on 911. To use the word hijacking, to describe I play Candy Crush too much is offensive, is not hijacking your brain, it's a distraction. You like it. So you use it a lot. And by the way, who brought you to this social dilemma? Netflix brought you the movie. Reed Hastings, the CEO says the better to Netflix is sleep. The New York Times tells you how horrible social media is because guess what? They're losing market share to social media. Fox News and CNN hate new media. They hate social media, they hate getting your news from sub stacks, that all they want to do is tell you how terrible technology is. Because their business model is the same business model. They're made by selling your attention to advertisers. Does anybody not know that that's how the media makes money? They sell your attention to advertisers, the same way that social media does. The second thing we need to consider is that the people bringing you this information are in the same damn business. So of course they have an incentive. Not that it's like a big plan. They're not like sitting there and plotting how can we do something to get people to stop using social media. But it's part of their DNA. I work in journalism. I was a journalism co major. I worked at CBS. I worked at the New York Times, I know how these companies operate, the first rule of of news media leads, they want to show you that sensational. They want to show you the stuff that spreads the viral content. They don't care if it's high quality. They don't care if it's not good, they want you to click same business model. So of course, I'm not surprised that many people have a warped perception because that's what we're told again and again, repeat a message. Technology is addictive, technology is hijacking your brain, it's stealing your focus. Well, the more people believe it, unfortunately, and they don't question these assumptions. Jeremy Au: (40:08) The tricky part, of course, is it's happening. It's already happening. It keeps happening. So how should people react to this? It feels like you got to keep snowballing. It's like, I don't think the media is going to stop, leading with those articles, just going to escalate it further. Nir Eyal: (40:25) And technology is going to become more pervasive and more persuasive. Technology is only going to get better, it's only going to become more potentially. Jeremy Au: (40:34) At the core of it, it feels like technologies, and this arms race racing head on. And humans are holding a stone club. Nir Eyal: (40:43) We oftentimes hear this argument of like, the primal brain is not equipped for modern distraction. Once again, bullshit. The thing that the human brain is better than any other species on the face of the earth at doing is adaptability. Murder is the most natural thing ever. We murder each other, left and right, all the time. But then you know, what we realized that wasn't good for us to keep murdering each other. And we started organizing societies and laws, and we gave power away from us as individuals to government to become the Leviathan, that then regulates how we behave to each other. So we don't kill each other. Rape is historically throughout the canon. We know that this would happen all the time, all kinds of other terrible things into each other, that we don't do anymore, we learn new behavior. So what the human species does, when it comes to new technology, adapt, and we adopt, we adapt our behaviors to these new changes, we change the way we look at it, which is what indistractable is all about. It's this new skill set. So you want to be able to communicate with people all over the world, you want the world's information on fingertips, you want constant entertainment for free? Well, the cost of all that is learning some new skills. If you want to drive a car, you have to learn how to drive the car. And so you need some basic skills. And so the same goes when it comes to our technology, we got to learn some new skills. That's what indistractable does. So the first thing we do is we adapt our behaviors, we adapt these new norms around how we use these products and services. The second thing is adopt new technologies to fix the last generation of bad technology. So Paul Virilio, the philosopher said, “When you invent the ship, you invent the shipwreck'”. When you invent the ship, you invent the shipwreck. So of course, any disruptive technology that has this massive impact on the world is going to have shipwrecks, there's going to be bad sides to it as well. Every technology that has this impact. It's going to have good and bad when it comes to shipping. When was the last time you heard of a shipwreck? Pretty rare. You don't really hear about shipwrecks anymore.这是为什么？ They stopped sailing ships. Did we ban shipping? No, we made shipping better? We adopted new technology. We don't sail ships that Columbus used. No, we have better technology today. That makes shipwrecks less common. So that's exactly what we need to do with all the problems that we see already. I don't know anybody under 30 that still uses Facebook blue. Now they all use WhatsApp. I know WhatsApp is owned by Meta. But I would argue that Instagram fix lots of the problems of Facebook, it's a better version. And now we see this continuely, their new versions, that it gets better and better, it continues to evolve. And that's what human beings have always done. We adapt our behaviors, our norms, and we adopt new technology to fix the last generation of technology. Jeremy Au: (43:34) You speak about this generation and the next generation. And, Generation Z is upon us. And my children who have been recently born over the past few years, I guess, there'll be generation alpha. I guess, I don't know what are going to call them. That's my guess. So when you peep into your crystal ball or that about the technology improving, all these products changing. How do you envision a next generation growing up? What their world will be and what their relationship with technology is going to be? Nir Eyal: (43:59) Yes, so this is a really important point. So I've a 14 years old, and she's very much digital native. I think some of her first words were iPad time. So it's incredibly to think about our children. Starting with, how do we raise Indistractable children? So there's a whole chapter in the book about how to raise indistractible kids. And start with first asking ourselves, what kind of example are we setting, that many of us, myself included? I used to be a hypocrite, I would tell my daughter not to use her phone. And meanwhile, I was checking email.你不能那样做。 If you want to raise indestractible kids, you have to be indistractible yourself. Children are born with hypocrisy detection devices, they have these little invisible antennas that you can't see. But they're there, that are constantly looking at you. And they love to call you out on it. And so they're looking, they're constantly watching you. By the way, this is the same if you're a manager at your place of work, you can't tell your employees to focus and not be distracted. If you're constantly checking your device, and you're the big boss who constantly is on their phones, you're setting an example. That's the first thing you have to do, we have to learn how to become indistractable ourselves, and to be vulnerable with our kids. And to tell them look, I'm struggling with this as well, that these products are designed to be very enticing. That's hooked. And so I can tell you, I wrote the book, I know all their tricks, and I can tell you, they're good. They're not that good. It's not mind trapping or hijacking your brain, this is clearly something we can do something about. And so we need to evolve our kids in learning the same exact process. Because as you said, the world's only going to become a more distracting place. And so this is the most important skill, it's more important than teaching them swimming, and ballet and Mandarin and all the skills with them. If they don't have the skill to focus their attention, it's all for not. Look, in a few years, many of the skills that they are going to have are going to be pointless, we're going to have blabble fishes in our ears that are going to translate a language, there's really no point to learning any other language, but code. In few years, our kids will talk, go to some other country, and they'll be able to converse, just like we are now in different languages, but the skills that they really will need is the skill to acquire new skills. And that skill is a skill of becoming indistractable. This is the skill of the century, because if you can't pay attention, long enough to learn a new skill, you don't truly control your life. So this is the skill of the century, our kids have to learn how to do this. Jeremy Au: (46:14) And you shared about sharing being a good example, for kids and so forth. On that personal note, could you share with us a time that you personally have been brave? Nir Eyal: (46:24) The time when I've been brave, It's a tough one. It's tough for me to share when I mess up, but I am not necessary. So in my book, I talk about how the impetus to write this book in the first place, was I was with my daughter one afternoon, and we had just some daddy daughter time planned. And I remember we had this activity book of different activities to do together, build a paper airplane and and fly it across the room and do Sudoku puzzle. And one of the activities in the book was to ask each other this if you could have any superpower, what superpower would you have? And I remember the question verbatim, but I can't tell you what my daughter said. Because that moment for whatever reason, I thought it was a good time. Let me just check this one quick thing on my phone. And by the time I looked up, she was gone. And I put a message that whatever was on my phone was more important than she was and she went to play with some toy outside. And that's when realized the relationship with distraction. And that was the impetus to write this book, was to figure out man if I'm doing this with her, where else am I doing this with my work, when I would say I was going to work on this big project and I would get distracted and do something else. I would do it when I would say I'm definitely going to eat right. I'm definitely going to exercise today. Then I didn't and I wouldn't and so that got me on this journey. So I guess the brave thing that I did was that I went back to her and I apologized. To say like I was wrong here, I messed up. As parents we're supposed to have all the answers correct until my daughter say look, I'm really sorry. I was not my best and I would really love to know what superpower and she told me later on that the superpower she would want is the power to be kind that was what she wants. Not to fly like Superman or whatever other superpowers but the power to be kind and that of course melted my heart and it actually had a message of indestructible because being kind is an incredible superpower. You don't need to be bit by a race. Like Spider Man, you don't need to be born on an alien planet like Superman. To be kind is something that we all can adapt, same goes for being indistractible. That is a choice that we can make that decision to be kind or to be indistractable. Jeremy Au: (48:38) When you see the next generation of kids your children and the next generation of children, what are first of all your hopes, and then secondly was your fears for them as they grew up? Nir Eyal: (48:52) My hope is that they have a sense of agency that having a belief in your own power changes things is incredibly important. In the psychology literature, we call this an internal versus an external locus of control. And we know that there is differentiation, this dichotomy of people who believe that their life is controlled by circumstances outside themselves, versus people who thinks that circumstances are controlled by inside themselves. So personal agency versus doing whatever the world has given you,fate. People who believe in agency are better off in almost every conceivable metric, they live longer, healthier, more productive lives by believing in their agency, even when it's not there. So that's the kicker. If it's true, and it clearly is, I'm not a blind optimist to say, everything is in your control. It's not in your control, you're discriminated against as an ethnic minority, or as of a particular gender or orientation. There are problems that are not your fault, clearly. But even if that's the case, it never serves us to think we're victims. It never serves us to think of ourselves as victims, to think that the world has done this to us, it always is better to believe that you have agency, so that's my wish. And my fear for this generation is that they lose this sense of agency. And so the more we can help our kids understand, we have a role to play a huge role, the biggest role to play comes down to you and your choices. Jeremy Au: (50:27) That was amazing. And I really appreciate you sharing that hope for our children and next generation. On that note, I love to wrap things up by I summarizing the three big themes that I got from this conversation. The first that really came through was really fighting for agency, personal accountability, ownership. And, being thoughtful about a world where there are financial incentives, there's the industry players, and all the various games that folks are playing. But never forgetting about that personal sense of responsibility. And being thoughtful about the fact that the human condition is a function of pain management, and escape from discomfort. So really thoughtful philosophy that actually makes it much easier for me to not think about it, is adding the value core across both the books 'Hooked and Indistractable'. The second I really enjoy was free speech and the regulatory point of view on Tik Tok and social media. I really enjoy it. For example, you sharing about the nuance that you have seen from your moves across geography and time. And also, to some extent, have you changed your point of view, in terms of how you want to fight for the rights of children, folks who are easily addicted, and undue influence, the role of government, but also the limits or capability of industry self regulation, for example, in the op ed that you wrote, years ago. Lastly, I think one thing that came up was quite clear was, the hope for next generation and our children. What really came across for me in this conversation was, these books are not only ways for product designers or individuals to live life today. But I really think there are a stake in the ground to fight for the next generation in terms of the values and I really appreciate your story about how you chose to be brave, to be present with your child again, and admitting your error. So I really love everything you shared. Nir Eyal: (52:21) Thank you so much. It was wonderful to be with you.谢谢你有我。