In an article in the NYTimes, Harvard professor Cass Sunstein examined the phenomenon of predictive shopping. Thanks to the enormous amount of data they possess and to sophisticated algorithms, companies are able to predict with fair approximation what our next purchases will be (or could be), but also which products, not yet purchased, could meet our approval. And they are ready to send them to us, even without us explicitly requesting them (but on condition that they are charged to our credit card). And they are ready to do so even in the absence of our prior consent.
On the one hand, predictive buying could relieve us (Sunstein even defines it as liberating) from boring tasks or tasks perceived as useless waste of time (time taken away from work, from a Nordic/Anglo-Saxon point of view of productivity or, more simply, from free time) . On the other hand, Sunstein is aware that such a mechanism is open to drawbacks and abuses, e.g. unwanted and yet paid goods, as well as poses enormous problems related to our privacy. The analysis provided stops here.
Evan Selinger, in an interesting article, argues that it is not emphasized enough by Sunstein: The negative aspect of his conclusions. Without adequate critical commentary, it is too easy to be overly optimistic about the wrong way to build the future… We cannot live well without having a good sense of where our own lives are going, as well as the lives of others we influence and from which we are affected. Bills must be paid. Relationships must be fostered. It is up to us not to build a world that future generations may find inhospitable.
According to Selinger, we may be led to deprive many small things of value and meaning, many seemingly banal rituals that substantiate our existence. One way by which we become oriented to think about the future is to … think about the future. This is how we develop anticipatory inclinations. Grocery shopping lists can seem trivial and writing them can feel like a chore. But it's not just about making sure you have enough soap and toilet paper. Seen as a ritual involving a first-person decision and action (including writing or typing), they are a practice that projects our awareness beyond the present. … But if we see them as insignificant, we could underestimate even more.
Gentile is the new “mood”
By diverting attention and practice from the particular, from the everyday, we could get lost in a broader, more general picture, of which we would progressively no longer be able to distinguish the individual components and grasp the many nuances, thus also losing the ability to understand its Together. The question is, then, what would happen if a contractable technology freed us from doing the little things that give us glimpses into the future. Could we focus more on the big picture, or would it fade from view, little by little?
Call it, if you will, alienation… And yet, from the author (with Richard Thaler) of Nudge. La Spinta Gentile, one could have expected more. The book in question proposed an approach often defined as a sort of "libertarian paternalism", applicable in various fields and situations. It consists in using a sort of goad, if we want a cognitive goad, without any means or coercive methods, to encourage a subject to do a certain thing, without prejudice, however, to the freedom of the same to make a different choice from the one suggested. There is an entire discipline, the Behavioral Law, which deals with it.
The book (which became a best-seller) and its message were so successful that British Prime Minister David Cameron, in 2010, set up a special unit, the Behavioral Insight Team (immediately renamed the Nudge unit), for the purpose to study, experiment, adapt and implement specific public policies that make use of the nudge. The nudge is based on incentives, real or motivational, to engage in a certain behaviour, but also on correct information that is as broad as possible. A subject with good information will presumably (but not necessarily) make better selections. Above all, the freedom of choice and action.
The loss of the nudge in predictive shopping
On the subject of predictive buying, all of that gets turned on its head. The freedom of choice appears very limited or completely absent, the information non-existent, the subject's scope for action limited or almost non-existent. We may find ourselves involved in some predictive shopping program even without our knowledge, without even expressing our consent. Even if we did, the only freedom we are allowed is to send back the unwanted goods (hoping that we will be paid the due refund). Freedom of choice now appears to be outdated. Companies will send us the products that their algorithms (and they alone?) believe to be those of our choice (it is true that the predictions would be based on our previous choices, but it is also true that we may want to change them). Our intervention space is once again confined to the eventual surrender.
Furthermore, who guarantees us that the products sent to us will be the best ones for us and not the best (or most advantageous) ones for the company? If goods and products were delivered to us on the basis of the unquestionable judgment of a company, where would the principle of competition and the free market end up, together with our ability to make different choices? Can we be sure that we would work for the best and not in the direction of greater profit (which would hardly be ours...)? And who would evaluate, if any, and on the basis of what criteria, what would be the best choice?
Furthermore, having analyzed it exhaustively in his book, Sunstein is well aware of the resilience to change of behaviors that have become habitual. As well as the implicit resilience contained in a choice that involves an action on our part (such as the return of a product). Action usually loses compared to inaction. We may even forget that we have joined some predictive shopping program and continue to pay for and receive goods that we no longer need or will never use. And what about any, possible, waste? Products accumulated (and paid for) that presumably we will not use, which sooner or later, reasonably, we will be forced to get rid of. It is also true, however, that inefficiency is often synonymous with profit. But for whose benefit? With this rather disturbing conclusion, we leave you to read the article by Cass Sunstein entitled “Shopping Made Psychic”.
Continue reading on ebookextra
