This seems broadly to pass the Kant test on morality, so it could be said to be well-grounded.
Something is immoral if it is contradictory when generalised -- that was the gist of Kant's view. And real manipulation and persuasion seem to fail: if everyone is allowed to manipulate everyone else, everyone loses their own control of themselves -- in which case, how can they manipulate someone else? There is a contradiction.
The two basic checks the article proposes -- "Will I use the product myself?" and, "Will the product help users materially improve their lives?" -- are sort-of rough ways of testing for such Kantian contradction.
> And real manipulation and persuasion seem to fail: if everyone is allowed to manipulate everyone else, everyone loses their own control of themselves -- in which case, how can they manipulate someone else? There is a contradiction.
Consider the case of two people A and B in a zero-sum game, who are trying to manipulate one another. Both parties know the score---that each is attempting to control the others actions.
When A or B acts, either one party has succeeded at manipulating the other or both parties have failed.
There can be no situation where A manipulates B (thus A wins), and B manipulates A (thus B wins simultaneously).
Great article! I really liked the manipulation matrix. The author did a great job of impressing upon entrepreneurs like me to create new products that improve lives by facilitating healthful habits. Couple of questions:
1) How does one balance the needs of investors while having a clear conscience to create a product that materially improves users lives but has higher costs or lowers margins?
2) Is there a fundamental behaviors matrix that defines what improves users lives?
I hate it, because if I were to use it, I couldn't make a weight watcher app (I don't need or want to lose weight), I couldn't make an app to help women keep track of their period or when to take their birth control pills (I am not female).
But neither of those are evil, and both of them arguably improve the lives of their users.
As for how to balance having a conscience, that is easy as you need to find a product that you believe in and then you won't have moral issues with causing more people to use.
If you can't find one, then realize that there is no god, no universal morals and what we believe is right or wrong can be changed. If you simply believe that you are a moral person and that you don't do things that are unethical then cognitive dissonance will ensure that you don't have any issues with you conscience.
Manipulation is wrong if it's truly consensual, and it remains truly consensual after the fact. This is a necessary, but not sufficient condition. The way I sometimes state this, is that, "Not being f#cked with is a basic human right."
If you get consent, but the other party changes their mind and you pressure the other party to remain silent through threats or social pressure, then you don't have true consent. Buyer's remorse notwithstanding -- markets and monetary transactions are a different matter.
I think there is a lot of social and cultural conflict that occurs because of some notion of "implicit consent" or the treatment of certain locations or social contexts in the way we treat a market. I would find that a man who buys a woman dinner and therefore feels entitled to sex is being a jerk. Feeling entitled to sex in almost any context is probably being a jerk. This is another case where one is applying market rules to an interpersonal transaction.
Except at the extremes, "materially improves users' lives" seems highly subjective. You can make this fit almost any product with a clear conscience - so no one's going to describe themselves as a Dealer or Entertainer.
Also, creating something you personally would use also seems like an odd and arbitrary distinction. I doubt patio11 is personally running many bingo games - but I'm certainly not going to criticize him for building a product many other people find useful.
I think the article would be improved if he took a softer stance here. Certainly there are observable defined needs (like bingo cards) an entrepreneur can provide. But many tech companies are trying to invent new things people didn't yet know they needed. When you go there, you better need it yourself or be a damned good and empathetic designer.
I am somewhat disappointed by this text it claims to be on how to manipulate people but is in reality a morality story (which I could have gotten in the local church if I wanted it).
You and I both. If you haven't already seen it there's a book, (Predictably Irrational, IIRC) that gives some scientific studies on why certain manipulations work. You might enjoy that, I did :)
Something is immoral if it is contradictory when generalised -- that was the gist of Kant's view. And real manipulation and persuasion seem to fail: if everyone is allowed to manipulate everyone else, everyone loses their own control of themselves -- in which case, how can they manipulate someone else? There is a contradiction.
The two basic checks the article proposes -- "Will I use the product myself?" and, "Will the product help users materially improve their lives?" -- are sort-of rough ways of testing for such Kantian contradction.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/#ForUniLawNat