degree of detached objectivity becomes possible which is not available to the researcher who actually has to confront people in order to collect data. Watsonâs dream of freeing psychology from its reliance on the âverbal behaviourâ of the subject looks to be nearly realized. The truth of our emotions will, allegedly, become plain, once researchers have decoded our brains, faces and unintentional sentiments.
As we move beyond the age of the survey, many of the same questions are being asked, but now with far more fine-grained answers. In place of opinion-polling, sentiment-tracking companies such as General Sentiment scrape data from 60 million sources every day, to produce interpretations of what the public thinks. In place of usersâ satisfaction surveys, public service providers and health-care providers are analysing social media sentiment for more conclusive evaluations. 11 And in place of traditional market research, data analytics apparently reveals our deepest tastes and desires. 12
One interesting element of this is that our quasi-privateconversations with each other (for instance via Facebook) are viewed as good hard data to be analysed, whereas the reports we make to interviews or surveys are considered less reliable. Our conscious statements of opinion or critique are untrustworthy, whereas our unwitting âverbal behaviourâ is viewed as a source of inner psychological truth. This may make sense from the perspective of behavioural and emotional science, but it is disastrous from the point of view of democracy, which depends on the notion that people are capable of voicing their interests deliberately and consciously.
These developments have generated a new wave of optimism regarding what can be known about the individual mind, decisionmaking and happiness. Finally, the real facts of how to influence decision-making may come to light. At last, the truth of why people buy what they buy might come to light. Now, over two centuries after Bentham, we might be about to discover what actually causes a quantifiable increase in human happiness. And in the face of a depression epidemic, mass surveillance of mood and behaviour might unlock the secrets of this disease, so as to screen for it and offer tips and tools to avoid it.
The unspoken precondition of this utopian vision is that society becomes designed and governed as a vast laboratory, which we inhabit almost constantly in our day-to-day lives. This is a new type of power dynamic altogether, which is difficult to characterize purely in terms of surveillance and privacy. The accumulation of psychological data occurs unobtrusively in such a society, often thanks to the enthusiastic co-operation of individual consumers and social media users. Its rationale is typically to make life easier, healthier and happier for all. It offers environments, such as smart cities, which are constantly adapting around behaviour and real-time social trends, in ways that most peopleare scarcely aware of. And in keeping with Benthamâs fear of the âtyranny of soundsâ, it replaces dialogue with expert management. After all, not everybody can inhabit a laboratory, no matter how big. A powerful minority must play the role of the scientists.
We received a glimpse of this future in June 2014, when Facebook published a paper analysing âemotional contagionâ in social networks. 13 The public response was similar to that of JWTâs survey subjects in Copenhagen and London in 1927: outrage. This one academic paper made headlines around the world, though not for the quality of its findings. Instead, the discovery that Facebook had deliberately manipulated the newsfeed of 700,000 users for one week in January 2012 seemed like an abuse of research ethics. 14 It turned out that this platform, on which friendships and public campaigns depended, was also being used as a laboratory to probe and test behaviour.
Will this sort of activity still prompt
As we move beyond the age of the survey, many of the same questions are being asked, but now with far more fine-grained answers. In place of opinion-polling, sentiment-tracking companies such as General Sentiment scrape data from 60 million sources every day, to produce interpretations of what the public thinks. In place of usersâ satisfaction surveys, public service providers and health-care providers are analysing social media sentiment for more conclusive evaluations. 11 And in place of traditional market research, data analytics apparently reveals our deepest tastes and desires. 12
One interesting element of this is that our quasi-privateconversations with each other (for instance via Facebook) are viewed as good hard data to be analysed, whereas the reports we make to interviews or surveys are considered less reliable. Our conscious statements of opinion or critique are untrustworthy, whereas our unwitting âverbal behaviourâ is viewed as a source of inner psychological truth. This may make sense from the perspective of behavioural and emotional science, but it is disastrous from the point of view of democracy, which depends on the notion that people are capable of voicing their interests deliberately and consciously.
These developments have generated a new wave of optimism regarding what can be known about the individual mind, decisionmaking and happiness. Finally, the real facts of how to influence decision-making may come to light. At last, the truth of why people buy what they buy might come to light. Now, over two centuries after Bentham, we might be about to discover what actually causes a quantifiable increase in human happiness. And in the face of a depression epidemic, mass surveillance of mood and behaviour might unlock the secrets of this disease, so as to screen for it and offer tips and tools to avoid it.
The unspoken precondition of this utopian vision is that society becomes designed and governed as a vast laboratory, which we inhabit almost constantly in our day-to-day lives. This is a new type of power dynamic altogether, which is difficult to characterize purely in terms of surveillance and privacy. The accumulation of psychological data occurs unobtrusively in such a society, often thanks to the enthusiastic co-operation of individual consumers and social media users. Its rationale is typically to make life easier, healthier and happier for all. It offers environments, such as smart cities, which are constantly adapting around behaviour and real-time social trends, in ways that most peopleare scarcely aware of. And in keeping with Benthamâs fear of the âtyranny of soundsâ, it replaces dialogue with expert management. After all, not everybody can inhabit a laboratory, no matter how big. A powerful minority must play the role of the scientists.
We received a glimpse of this future in June 2014, when Facebook published a paper analysing âemotional contagionâ in social networks. 13 The public response was similar to that of JWTâs survey subjects in Copenhagen and London in 1927: outrage. This one academic paper made headlines around the world, though not for the quality of its findings. Instead, the discovery that Facebook had deliberately manipulated the newsfeed of 700,000 users for one week in January 2012 seemed like an abuse of research ethics. 14 It turned out that this platform, on which friendships and public campaigns depended, was also being used as a laboratory to probe and test behaviour.
Will this sort of activity still prompt
Similar Books
