Over the last few years our love affair with technology has gone past the honeymoon stage. Negative side effects of screens became an open secret. For decades we have been fascinated only with the benefits of technology, and no one gave much thought to the downside. But as more research keeps coming out about adverse side effects of screen time – from reduced attention span to compromised productivity, social skills, physical and mental health – it’s getting clear that just about every traditional human metric is compromised by digital media overuse. 

Parents are concerned about children growing up emotionally fragile, anxious, socially inept, and totally unprepared for life. The language of wide-eyed fascination with technology has been replaced with warnings of addiction. Unhealthy digital habits consumed the entire society, children and adults alike. 

Is it time to panic yet?

With the release of The Social Dilemma documentary by the Center for Humane Technology awareness of the problem went mainstream. Now almost everyone knows that something went terribly wrong at the intersection of technology and human well-being.  

The merger between psychology and technology occurred without people noticing.  

Sean Parker, first president of Facebook, famously said: “The thought process that went into building these applications, Facebook being the first of them…was all about: “How do we consume as much of your time and conscious attention as possible?”…exactly the kind of thing that a hacker like myself would come up with, because you’re exploiting the vulnerability in human psychology.” 

The amount of attention is fixed by our biology – it is limited to 24 hours a day, minus the time we decide to sleep. Therefore, this scarce resource becomes ever-more valuable as the amount of information competing for our attention expands exponentially. Where attention is, there is money – that’s why it’s called the “attention economy”. 

Which results in an ethical dilemma for the digital media companies that are tempted to exploit human psychological weaknesses to divert our attention to their platform, away from other platforms, and away from other competing non-digital activities. As Netflix’s CEO said: “Sleep is our competition”. 

The result is our dysfunctional relationship with technology, with most “users” blaming themselves for being “addicted”, using language that should be reserved for drugs. 

The work of attention engineering is called UX (User Experience) design, and it is optimized for maximum user engagement. Which translates to maximum time on the screen. Which in turn translates to maximum profits. It’s a vicious cycle.   

Hack the humans – or go out of business. Technology had to hijack our evolutionary biology.

To develop addictive digital products, tech companies learned the works of human nature from the best behavioral psychologists and neuroscientists. They applied what they learned to make products like Instagram and Facebook that tap into deep evolutionary biology of social validation. Products like multiplayer video games that create a sense of purpose for addicted gamers who cannot find it in the real world. Products like Twitter and YouTube and TikTok and Snapchat and thousands of others that provide the user with a never-ending stream of digital “random rewards” and have the same addictive potential as slot machines at the casino. 

Every successful digital product is based on the principles of behavioral psychology. Of course, they bring a lot of value into our lives – otherwise we would not use them. But in addition to solving our problems, the attention economy finds – and exploits – human weaknesses. As unethical as it is, that’s the business model behind trillions of dollars in market value of the biggest tech companies. And it’s unlikely to change any time soon. 

Behavioral psychologists took a hit to their reputations after it became known that their science had been digitized for profit into products that were supposed to improve – but in many cases were ruining people’s lives. It is almost impossible to enjoy the benefits of Facebook for 3 hours a day without experiencing adverse side effects of Facebook: feeling inadequate, anxious, isolated, and unproductive. The coin has two sides. 

Rampant tech addiction could not – and should not – be blamed on psychologists though. Their knowledge of human nature was always meant to serve human well-being, not destroy it. The science of psychology was misapplied. 

Doctors have to take the Hippocratic Oath and swear to “do no harm” to the patient. User Interface (UI) designers of the Big Tech so far have no such ethical limitations and are free to manipulate the user’s brain for profit disregarding the side effects: smartphones, social media, and video games taken in large doses can be devastating to productivity, relationships, physical and mental health. Nasty surprise. 

Behavioral scientists never meant it to be that way.

They have raised ethical concerns that go with influencing human behavior as the science was being developed. BJ Fogg, the founder of Behavior Design Lab at Stanford University, is considered the creator of the field of persuasive technology. He wrote extensively about ethical considerations back in 2002 in his book Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change What We Think and Do – all before Facebook and smartphones and iPads came into existence. The warnings were there: technology is powerful. Handle with care. 

When behavioral scientists like BJ Fogg taught future technology innovators, they warned them about ethical implications of applying technology to manipulate human behavior. But the tech leaders did not have the time to focus on the potential side effects. Ethical parameters would only limit the algorithms that were making billions. 

They were too busy innovating, and too successful to stop. They believed in the beauty of technology and concentrated on its upside. They genuinely thought they were changing the world for the better. No one bothered to explore if there should be “small print” side effect warnings to go along with the wondrous new tech drugs. 

We can find some warnings today in the legalistic language of terms and conditions – but only about privacy, not psychological harm. No one reads them. They are not fun compared to actually using the app.  

Maybe by now behavioral psychologists feel similar to nuclear scientists. Nuclear power can be made into a bomb that kills thousands, or used to produce clean energy and improve lives. In the same fashion, the power of technology can be harnessed to enhance human well-being – or destroy it, depending on the use. 

Scientists behind the atomic bomb were not evil people. What did they feel about their creation after Hiroshima? “Woe is me.” – said Einstein after he heard of the explosion. Some of the creators of digital technologies feel similar pangs of conscience today: “What have we done?” Technology they created proved to be powerful – and often destructive – beyond anyone’s expectations. A force has been unleashed on the world, and it does not look like it will be contained any time soon.

Some tech insiders, like Sean Parker or Tristan Harris, actively speak out and become conscientious objectors. Some are more quiet, flying under the radar by sending their kids to tech-free schools, tech-free summer camps, and limiting screen time at home. They know exactly that the user interface of digital products was based on the vulnerabilities of the human brain, and would rather not have their own kids manipulated that way, thank you very much. 

We cannot wait for the government to catch up with regulations. The companies themselves will not volunteer to change their business practices of extracting human attention at all costs – as long as it’s legal, they are in compliance with the law. 

If we are to protect ourselves from the adverse effects of addictive technology, our best chance is to use the same weapon that was used against us. 

When we face persuasive design tactics that hack our humanity, we can disrupt these tactics with the help of Behavior Design. Digital media creators learned about your brain to get you addicted to their products, but when you take control back to craft your own environment of limited screen time, you win at their own game.   

Where do we start? How do we hack the psychology of self?