Latest / Women Disrupting Tech / How Power and Design Shape the Technology We Use With Dr. Christine Miller | Ep. 144

Transcript

How Power and Design Shape the Technology We Use With Dr. Christine Miller | Ep. 144 · Women Disrupting Tech

0:00
And tools, there's such a wide range of like, how do we define
0:03
a tool? It can be something as simple as
0:06
a hammer or a shovel or a digging stick, right?
0:10
And those are designed for functionality.
0:13
Like I need to accomplish a task and I need this thing to, you
0:19
know, like a digging stick. I need this thing to have a
0:22
pointy end, and I need it to be strong so that when I put
0:25
pressure on, it doesn't break. And so they're designed for
0:27
functionality. What we're seeing now in terms
0:32
of what we're calling tools is really calling into question,
0:36
are they really designed for functionality.
0:39
And I think that's what we as quote, UN quote users think, but
0:43
that's not what they're designed for.
0:57
Hey, welcome back to Women Disrupting Tech, and thank you
1:00
for tuning in to episode 144. I'm your host, Pierre Konukas.
1:06
And on this podcast, we amplified stories of female
1:09
founders and their investors to help close the funding gap in
1:13
venture capital. In this episode, I speak with
1:16
Doctor Christine Miller. Doctor Christine Miller is a
1:20
professor of design management at the Savannah College of Art
1:24
and Design in Savannah, GA and she's a design educator,
1:28
researcher, practitioner working at the intersection of
1:32
anthropology, design and business.
1:35
She's also the co-author of the book Tools, Totems and
1:38
Totalities. And in this book and on this
1:41
podcast, she argues that technology is never just a tool.
1:46
In fact, it reflects the culture, incentives and power
1:50
structures of the people who design it, and over time, those
1:54
choices shape how we live and work.
1:57
In this conversation, we explore how technologies evolve from
2:01
tools into systems that shape behaviour, why everyday
2:05
technology carries. Both.
2:06
Dreams and nightmares and why founders are not just building
2:11
products, but shaping systems people live and work in.
2:16
Plus, we talk about how investors in venture capital are
2:19
risk averse when it comes to investing in woman, not because
2:24
there's no money to be made, but because they don't know how to
2:27
assess the impact. So if you want to have a
2:29
different view on the technology that we built and use everyday,
2:34
here's my conversation with Doctor Christine Miller.
2:38
So, Chris Miller, welcome to Women Disrupting Tech.
2:41
It's an honor to have you. Maybe let's start a bit with
2:46
your background. How did you end up exploring
2:48
cultural construction of technology and which is sort of
2:53
the foundation of the book that we're about to discuss, Tools,
2:56
totems and totalities? OK, yes, so I have a PhD, it's
3:04
an interdisciplinary PhD and I was conducting my PhD studies in
3:13
anthropology and business. I was introduced to science and
3:18
technology studies are also STS and complexity science.
3:24
And one person who introduced me was Alan Bateau, who is the
3:28
co-author on the book. And these approaches,
3:34
perspectives, way of looking at the world, theories, whatever
3:38
you want to call them, they aligned with the approach of
3:42
holism and systems thinking that were part of my education as an
3:45
anthropologist. All this fits in oddly enough.
3:51
Maybe not oddly, but it all fits in with my training in art and
3:54
design, specifically the making of things, which is design.
4:01
OK, so how did you get to writing a book about this topic?
4:07
I have been writing quite a bit during the time when and this
4:11
book was being written. I was approached by Alan
4:15
actually, who was the chair of my dissertation committee, and
4:19
he asked me if I was interested in Co authoring on this topic.
4:24
And he had already started writing some things, capturing
4:28
his thoughts. And it sounded really
4:31
interesting to me because, you know, I've been working with
4:35
technology of course, for many years.
4:37
I'm an OK user of technology. I'm not a particularly
4:42
proficient person with technology, but mostly what I'm
4:45
interested in is the way that people interact with and use
4:51
technology. So that was very interesting.
4:54
And I really liked the idea of taking an anthropological look
5:00
at this kind of quality or characteristic that many modern
5:06
or contemporary technologies have, this idea of hegemony,
5:09
hegemony. And so that's kind of of where
5:14
it started. It just sounded interesting.
5:17
Yeah. So hegemony, how does it show up
5:23
in today's, let's say, technologies like AI and
5:28
automation? So hegemony has to do with power
5:34
and dominance. And then many of the
5:37
technologies that we use today, we're almost, I'll use the word
5:42
force to use if we want to, you know, live in contemporary
5:49
society, function in contemporary society.
5:51
We have to use these things. And it, it just feels more and
5:58
more over time. It's not so much the kind of
6:01
delight in having things work and doing things for you, for
6:06
me, but it just became uncomfortable and I ended up
6:12
feeling like, you know, I was either fighting with the
6:15
technology or kind of submitting to it.
6:20
So that to me is hegemony. Even though hegemony has been
6:25
used more in a political sense, it's a characteristic that can
6:30
pretty easily be applied to contemporary technology.
6:35
Yeah. Do you see that as a sort of way
6:38
to suppress people and or to force people to do things in a
6:43
certain way? I would say they oppress more
6:47
than suppress, although I think suppress as well.
6:50
But yeah, they've, they, you know, you have to, if this is
6:54
not so much a matter of choice anymore, you have to, and you
6:59
know, most of these technologies that are hegemonic don't allow a
7:04
lot of choice. You have to kind of take what's
7:07
given and try to make it work for you.
7:11
But if it gets to the point where you're, you know, don't
7:16
want to do that anymore, you want to get out of it, it, it
7:19
makes it very difficult to exit, if not impossible.
7:24
And a lot of these things are interwoven.
7:26
Like can I use an example? Yeah, sure.
7:30
OK, Amazon. So Amazon offers lots of good
7:35
things and it's quite easy to order and it's free shipping
7:39
and, you know, everything is, is ease and and that's nice.
7:46
That's good until you try to get out of it and you know, your
7:51
credit card is tied to Amazon and you know, you're ordering
7:58
and the price keeps going up. And it's like, I don't want to
8:01
do this anymore because I don't like the direction the company's
8:04
going in. And it's like not easy to get
8:06
out. So that's just one example.
8:08
Yeah. And the other more also very
8:11
obvious example, I think it's JGPT or Claude or whatever else
8:17
you have on, on the, on the AI front is where you first need to
8:21
understand how to prompt the thing before you get the answers
8:26
you're looking for. And sometimes that's really
8:29
clear and some most of the times I meanwhile found out while
8:33
coding it's not that clear. Correct, Yes.
8:38
And you know, what I've found over time is that the delight in
8:43
kind of playing with this new thing is turning into, as
8:48
mentioned in the book, disappointment or frustration
8:53
and distrust. OK, so because it doesn't live
8:58
up to expectations, it actually does the order the the thing
9:03
that it's, I don't think people designed the technology to do in
9:10
the 1st place which caused distrust.
9:12
Yeah, I don't think, well, I don't know that it was designed
9:15
with the idea of distrust. I think distrust is a
9:18
consequence. It's an unintended consequence.
9:22
But, you know, everybody who uses AI knows that you can't
9:29
really trust it, that it will give you wrong answers and that
9:34
it is very frustrating when you're trying to accomplish
9:38
something and it's not cooperating, as if, you know,
9:43
cooperation was a term we could even use with it.
9:45
But yeah. Yeah, well, at least at first we
9:50
all thought, OK, now it gets a lot easier to to do certain
9:54
things and turns out, turns out it isn't necessarily let's let's
9:59
put it that way. Yeah, agreed.
10:02
Yeah. So one of the other core ideas
10:05
that you have in your book is that technology is never
10:08
neutral. So in in the sense that it
10:15
carries a lot of cultural values and societal beliefs that are
10:23
built into it, what maybe maybe explain to me first what real
10:30
neutrality would be about. And then on the back of that,
10:33
maybe it's good to also to because many founders still
10:36
believe that tech is neutral. Well, I don't think it is and
10:42
I'm not sure it even can be neutral.
10:45
I I mean, if we're talking about like what is infused in the
10:50
design of this thing, it's going to have values.
10:54
I mean, it, it's going to be infused with values.
10:58
So I don't know if neutrality is even an option.
11:02
And maybe I would need to look at really how we defining
11:05
neutrality, but I really don't think it can be neutral.
11:10
And you know, in many cases it certainly is not neutral.
11:15
There's the agenda. Yeah.
11:17
So how does design play into this?
11:19
Well, design, you know, kind of with a capital D is about like
11:24
how what are the design principles that are being
11:28
applied that inform what this thing actually is, what it does
11:35
and how people interact with it. So design comes up with
11:39
principles and these inform what the product looks like.
11:46
OK. And yeah.
11:48
And so the the the cultural DNA, let's say, or societal beliefs
11:54
are in the principles. Yes, yes.
11:58
But how is that different, let's say now from a couple of
12:04
centuries ago then? Yeah, that's interesting because
12:08
I think, you know, again, we're running into an issue with like,
12:11
what do we call things, right? So we're the title of the book
12:15
is actually tools, right? And tools, there's such a wide
12:20
range of like, how do we define a tool?
12:22
It can be something as simple as a hammer or shovel or digging
12:27
stick, right? And those are designed for
12:30
functionality. Like I need to accomplish a task
12:34
and I need this thing to, you know, like a digging stick.
12:38
I need this thing to have a pointy end and I need it to be
12:41
strong so that when I put pressure on, it doesn't break.
12:44
And so they're designed for functionality.
12:47
What we're seeing now in terms of what we're calling tools is
12:52
really calling into question, are they really designed for
12:56
functionality? And I think that's what we as
12:59
quote, UN quote users think, but that's not what they're designed
13:03
for. They're designed for some sort
13:06
of transaction. OK, and and.
13:08
Function particularly. OK.
13:11
And and and what is? What type of transactions are we
13:16
talking about then? Yeah.
13:18
So if chat TPT, if chat TPT or any of the AI platforms gives me
13:24
the opportunity to use this thing as a research assistant to
13:31
look up obscure references or citations, Fantastic that that
13:37
is a transaction. I'm going to give you my prompt,
13:41
my data. You know you're going to use my
13:43
prompt as data, right? And you're going to give me the
13:47
thing that I asked for. And that's kind of the basic
13:52
relationship with it. OK, so because it it gets
13:57
something in return data that it can use to let's say optimize
14:03
over time, it becomes sort of a transaction.
14:10
OK, so then the difference between let's say a hammer and
14:15
ChatGPT is that the hammer just can be used for a couple of
14:22
tasks, but doesn't it doesn't really require anything in
14:27
addition other than you using it properly.
14:32
And the tech does require you to put in effort and data to to
14:38
accomplish the. The goal that you have is that.
14:44
That's right. Yes.
14:46
OK, cool. So in the book you introduce a
14:52
framework of totems of tools. We just discussed that totems
14:56
and totalities to explain why why technology often
15:02
disappoints. Yes, yes.
15:05
How how? Maybe we just went into the
15:10
tools. Perhaps first just explain what
15:13
the totems and totalities are. And then on the back of that, my
15:18
question would be, OK, which of these three actually explains
15:23
the gap between the the heaven we're promised and the hell we
15:28
end up in? OK, so the idea of totems is we
15:34
think, you know, typically people might think, might think
15:38
that totems are something from the past, right, that
15:41
traditional societies would use totems to organize themselves.
15:47
All right. So, you know, you have a totem
15:50
pole, for example, and the order of the hierarchy would be
15:55
visual. But we still use totems today.
15:58
And logos are totems. Totally logos are.
16:03
And several years ago, I, one of my cohorts when I was doing my
16:09
dissertation was doing her dissertation on the space
16:12
shuttle. And so she created a visual that
16:16
showed the space shuttle with all the icon or the logos of the
16:20
companies that were working on any part of it, right.
16:25
So it could have been a a conglomerate like Lockheed
16:29
Martin or Martin Marietta became Lockheed Martin.
16:32
But under that would be all these sub totems.
16:36
So the whole thing, especially if you stood the space shuttle,
16:40
you know, end to end, it looks like a totem pole, right?
16:43
And maybe you could visualize some of the more important
16:47
actors or players bigger or you know, something, but it it
16:53
actually looks like a totem, right?
16:55
And so that that's the totem part.
16:59
So totems are with us today. It's just something that humans
17:03
do. And the idea of totalities
17:06
that's that's a tough one. I have a hard time thinking
17:09
about totalities. I understand them in terms of
17:12
like, you know, things that are hegemonic.
17:16
That's a totality. It's like says everything.
17:20
It encompasses everything. So a lot of these technologies
17:24
that were so that are embedded in our lives, that is a
17:29
totality. OK, so that is more like the the
17:33
the summary of the OR the the total of all systems that are
17:41
leading to a certain outcome. Yes.
17:45
OK. And and if you look at tools,
17:48
totems and totality these which, which of these free has the most
17:54
impact on the gap we see between the promise we get from tech?
18:00
This will be solving all your ailments forever and beyond
18:05
versus the reality that we still have to understand how to
18:09
prompt, I think. That's the totalities.
18:15
I think totalities is, is what really creates the gap because
18:22
in a totality you don't have a choice.
18:26
You know it's difficult to escape.
18:29
OK. So because, yeah, so because
18:31
there's the, the tools and the totems in itself are let's say
18:36
the the products and the brands of a company.
18:40
And then the totality is a societal, let's say,
18:47
surroundings of it, which make it difficult to opt out of,
18:52
let's say using AI or using Amazon or yeah, for some people
19:01
using venture capital to build our startup.
19:05
Yes. OK.
19:07
It's it requires that you are going to play a role.
19:12
Yeah, within the system. And so the system determines
19:15
what your role is, and you have no other way of playing that
19:20
role than is described in the system.
19:23
You can try. You can try, yeah, but it's
19:28
hard. Yeah, that that becomes sort of
19:30
hard because then you're fighting the system.
19:33
Exactly. Or trying to be sneaky.
19:36
Why is it sneaky though, if you're if you're trying to build
19:39
something because many, many founders that I speak to try to
19:43
even the men by the way, who search who solicit venture
19:49
capital, they actually do want to create a a new system that is
19:57
better than what we have right now.
19:59
So in that sense, they. Either they've opted out or they
20:04
are trying to opt out, but they're using actually quite
20:09
interesting now that I think of it, they are using this the
20:14
resources that the system. Provides them to opt out of the.
20:17
System that they want to escape. Yes, yes.
20:23
And that's the, that's the which.
20:25
Keeps them in the system. Yeah, right.
20:28
You're you're on the edges, you know, you're trying to take
20:33
advantage of the what the resources, but trying to stay
20:38
away from being like caught in the orbit.
20:43
So it's, yeah, it's a bit like, how do you say the the in
20:51
Duchess called SWAT that you're actually drawn to the Earth?
20:57
Gravity. Gravity.
20:58
Thank you. That was the word I was looking
21:00
for. So it's sort of the the system
21:03
has has the totality has so much gravity that it pulls you back
21:08
in. Yes.
21:11
Now, let's say I'm a founder and I actually want to build
21:18
something, but I do not want to sort of perpetuate societal
21:26
beliefs. Let's say in my personal case,
21:29
that would be societal beliefs around the role of women and the
21:34
role of women female entrepreneurs, that they get
21:38
less money for doing basically the same work or doing this,
21:45
creating the same quality goods. How should I?
21:50
Where do I start? Well, I'm looking, you know, I
21:56
try to find concrete examples to answer that question.
22:02
I would say the blue sky and I had to actually look up the name
22:11
of the woman that is the founder and CEO.
22:15
Maybe our name is. Or the the social media?
22:19
Yeah, yeah, the the Twitter clone.
22:21
Right. Yeah, well, they're trying to
22:24
create an alternative, right, that does the the good stuff and
22:30
doesn't do the bad stuff. Again, the bad stuff being that
22:34
here are the rules and this is how we play my rules, right?
22:40
Not your roles, my roles. And you know how, how did they
22:44
avoid that? How do they avoid that?
22:47
I mean, they're doing OK, but I'm not sure they're making
22:52
profit and and they may be strictly working on VC.
22:59
I'm not sure. I'd have to look it up a little
23:01
bit more, but I actually like Blue Sky a lot as an
23:05
alternative. Yeah, it's at least what I've
23:09
been told. It's much more friendly than X,
23:13
in part also because there's less people being yeah, teased
23:19
and and negatively approached because there's a lot of on
23:25
Twitter at least. I don't know how it is now
23:28
because I've been off the platform since a while, but
23:31
there used to be a lot of yeah, bullying, let's say either by
23:38
boats or by people sitting behind screens and never doing
23:42
anything else than just bullying other people.
23:47
So meanwhile I've taken, I'm looking at how blue sky is
23:53
actually different. It has it's the same in the
23:58
sense it's micro blogging, which is so it's it's also a character
24:05
limit of probably around 240 to 50 mark.
24:11
You can have replies that say follows etcetera.
24:15
So it's in that sense it's social platform would other than
24:20
the technology. So they have a decentralized way
24:25
of operating where he's X is centrally controlled by the big
24:32
man himself. There's much more user control
24:37
for content and algorithm. User base of X is obviously
24:43
bigger, but set of blue sky has more experimental features.
24:50
Well, that's I haven't your question was also if it's
24:55
profitable, right? Right.
24:58
Yeah. I just noticed on LinkedIn that
25:00
they're hiring probably engineers and that's possibly
25:07
they pay quite well. Yeah, So money's coming from
25:11
somewhere, but I'm not. Sure.
25:12
Yeah, that. But that that could be because
25:14
of recent investments. Yes.
25:18
They're they're, they have minimal revenue and not yet
25:21
profitable business. At least that's the information
25:25
that I get from from Che GPT as we as we do the interview.
25:33
It's checking it out. Yeah.
25:36
And again, of course Che GPT may be wrong, but in this case it
25:42
sites the annual accounts of of blue sky.
25:45
So probably there are some some truth to it, but then probably
25:50
they got funding of sorts that allows them to hire an expense.
25:57
So, but it's good to know then it's growing.
26:00
Yes, and it's growing. And you know, you mentioned the
26:05
experimentation and control. Those are two important
26:12
attributes of technology that is not hegemonic.
26:18
OK, in what sense? Well, if you're allowed control
26:23
right, then that's that's a positive in my opinion.
26:28
You can control who you know, who gets the data.
26:32
I'm not sure how blue sky works in that sense, but
26:36
experimentation. Let's try something and see if
26:39
it works. I suppose that hegemonic
26:42
technologies, I would say like X, they try things too, but it's
26:48
about optimizing their their system, not optimizing for the
26:55
people that are using it necessarily.
26:58
Maybe throw them a little something, but it's mostly about
27:01
optimizing the the platform. So that's and with that and with
27:07
that also the the financial part of it and again the control.
27:13
Yep, Yep. OK, so going back to if you, if
27:16
we want to change this and let's say there's a women founder,
27:22
they've run into a lot of systemic issues either on pay,
27:27
on funding, on being taken serious.
27:31
I just mentioned about the pitch deck that it's before we started
27:36
talking that women's revenue projections are discounted as
27:42
much as men. And what that does is basically
27:45
it takes out all the upside that was there.
27:49
Whereas with men, there are still 2030% upside extra left.
27:56
So I was wondering, based on the research you've done, how can
28:02
women change the system, the totality?
28:07
Yes, boy, that, that's a, that's an interesting question, but
28:13
also a tough one. Cause the system that they are
28:19
interacting with that are that they are a part of is, is
28:24
probably stacked against them, I would say.
28:27
And, you know, we've seen this over and over again, you know,
28:30
where I've just finished reading, you know, kind of a
28:34
sideline, but it's an example, all the novels of Jane Austen in
28:39
the original language. And it was, it was hard.
28:43
But as I read them, I realized what a brilliant author Jane
28:49
Austen was. She actually wrote in her own
28:52
name. But, you know, just like the,
28:55
you know, women tech founders today, she wasn't taken
28:58
seriously. It took her a long time to be
29:03
published and she got published because certain men intervened
29:09
for her, right? Because she wasn't going to be
29:12
taken seriously. And Oh my God, writing novels,
29:16
the lowest form of literature novels, right?
29:20
And she comments on that very, very smart, really in tune with
29:27
people's feelings of at the time, of course.
29:30
But I think it's the same today for women and technology.
29:35
They want to do something that is going to be, you know, have
29:42
positive outcomes for people, planet, profit.
29:46
But the kind of powers that be aren't, they're not interested
29:51
in that. I mean, can you be profitable?
29:54
How soon can you be profitable? How much capital can you bring
29:58
in, right? They're not looking at at
30:01
profitability in any of the forms of capital other than
30:06
financial capital, right? But there are other forms of
30:09
capital. And I think women are maybe not
30:12
consciously attuned to that, but they do look for that.
30:17
How can we really solve problems?
30:19
That's what design does. Do you think it's should the
30:26
women then do something differently or should men change
30:32
their definitions of, let's say, capital of profit, of progress?
30:40
Yeah. I mean with, you know, is it
30:43
possible that someone stands up whether they're male or female,
30:48
women or men and says, you know, we are going to look at
30:55
profitability not just as financial profit, but we're
31:00
looking at infrastructure, capital.
31:03
Can they look at other forms of capital?
31:06
Can they look at other forms of capital, technology
31:10
infrastructure, social capital, cultural capital, right.
31:14
But they don't now is there. Someone.
31:20
Why is that? Because the value system is set
31:24
up for profitability, financial profitability.
31:27
How much power can you grab? And power is, you know,
31:31
financial capital in many cases, most cases.
31:35
Is it about power or is it about the finances?
31:39
Or is finances A proxy for power?
31:43
I think finances are a proxy for power, yeah, it's not.
31:47
No, but but then again, I think profitability can be measured
31:51
also over the axis of let's say societal progress that we make,
31:57
which which could be the case especially if you see and that
32:00
also trans translate into cold hard cash.
32:04
By the way, if you look at the female health for instance,
32:09
there are I think A1 trillion U.S. dollar per year
32:16
opportunity. If we solve for the the most
32:20
important problems in female health, then we can get more
32:25
productivity and actually the the companies will do better.
32:29
So there's more profitability for everyone, even in the, let's
32:33
say, the traditional sense of the word.
32:36
Yes, very true. But who's going to do that
32:40
right? And the investment that it takes
32:42
to actually make that happen, who wants to take that risk?
32:46
I mean, I think that's, that's the question are are we, you
32:50
know, will we take that risk to invest when it makes it longer,
32:56
right? But, but if it is it about the
33:00
risk that it takes longer because my, my read, especially
33:05
from venture capital is that if it takes a couple of years
33:10
longer, they don't really care because it's the payout is
33:13
there, the payout is there and it will, it will be very good
33:20
anyway. So it's going to be worth
33:23
waiting for. So.
33:27
But that's maybe maybe I'm reading this wrong.
33:31
No, I think you're right. And you mentioned a little bit
33:34
earlier about metrics, right. How do you measure societal
33:41
benefit? I mean you can, I mean this is
33:45
an issue that comes up a lot in design.
33:48
You know, what is the business value of design?
33:50
And actually Mackenzie and has tried to answer this and they
33:55
have answered it. But you know, do companies
33:59
believe it? Do they then embrace design or
34:03
are they so vested and things being the way that they already
34:08
are that change is just, you know, we're, we're not up for
34:12
it. So then it would be the men who
34:15
are more risk averse than the women.
34:19
In the long term, yeah, yeah, yeah.
34:23
I mean, if I can make my money and get out of here, that's what
34:27
I want. Yeah.
34:28
So then it's also the let's may, let's say the more short term
34:32
focus, transactional focused way of measuring profitability.
34:39
So now instead of in the future. That's a good way to put it.
34:44
Yeah. Yeah, give me something easy to
34:46
measure. And and easy to implement.
34:49
And easy to implement. Because if it would be easy then
34:52
probably it would have been done like ages ago.
34:56
But then again here we are with. I was reading this morning about
35:00
an interesting read on Soap Stack about the fact that
35:06
everyone uses statins to control for cholesterol, but women have
35:14
much more of the side effects than men.
35:17
And that is mainly because the at the time we were developing
35:22
statins, we didn't want to have hormones play around or mess
35:30
around in the in the research results.
35:34
So what did we do from a medical society point of view?
35:39
We tested it on only men because they are the hormone cycle is
35:44
pretty stable on a daily, weekly fleet and yearly basis.
35:50
Whereas I think for women there's like 5 or 6 hormones
35:56
that are playing around and depending on the time of day and
36:00
the day of the month the impact may be different.
36:06
Interesting. Which as a result leads to that
36:09
statins on day one may have no effect whatsoever on a woman,
36:15
and on day day five it may be like lead to severe headaches or
36:22
other even worse side effects. Yeah, interesting.
36:26
So let's go back to the to the original discussion.
36:30
So you write about something what that I found really
36:35
intriguing about identity shaping technology as much as
36:40
utility. Double click from me on that.
36:45
What what you mean by that? Right.
36:48
OK, so another example Apple, right, I use Apple products.
36:57
I was kind of raised on PCs, but I really like Apple technology
37:06
because it or until recently I have anyway, because of the
37:11
design. It's very slick, clean looking,
37:16
security is pretty good. And, you know, it's kind of like
37:22
X, you know, on the outside when I open my laptop and it's got
37:26
the Apple on the front, right? That says something about me,
37:30
right? Yeah, it makes you part of their
37:33
totem. Yes, I'm part of the totem.
37:36
I'm in the clan. Yeah, yeah, me too, by the way.
37:39
Yeah. So, yeah, I think that, you
37:42
know, for for branding, it's like it's all over the place,
37:47
all over the place. I mean, whether you're talking
37:49
about, you know, beauty products or, you know, technology or
37:55
where you went to school or, you know, whether you use ChatGPT,
38:01
Notebook, LM or Clod or, you know, what does that say about
38:05
me about the choices that I make, right?
38:10
And the brands, the brands and the brand of me, which I really
38:15
hate that, but it's true. Yeah.
38:19
So what I'm here you say is that it's let's say to stay with the
38:26
Apple example, it makes you tells people something about you
38:31
as a person that you are part of that brands.
38:37
Yeah, yeah, yeah. OK.
38:39
In addition to the to the utility of let's say the
38:43
security, the design which is used to be really good.
38:48
Used to yes, yes. And the politics, right.
38:53
Do I like the politics? I mean, I think Tesla's an
38:56
interesting example because when Tesla first, you know, not
39:00
first, but until recently, you know, people would buy a Tesla
39:04
because they wanted to say something.
39:06
They wanted to express themselves through the car that
39:09
they drive, Right. And now, you know, people are
39:12
putting bumper stickers that said I bought my Tesla before,
39:16
you know, this app, not me anymore.
39:18
I went out. But Daniel, I owe so much on
39:22
this car. I still got to drive it around.
39:24
And. Yeah.
39:28
And that's also how the sort of totality keeps you linked or it
39:32
keeps you hooked. Hooked.
39:37
Meshed, yeah. Is it a sort of yeah.
39:41
In that sense, it's then comparable to to being hooked to
39:45
a sort of drug. Yes, absolutely.
39:47
It is about addiction in a way. Yeah.
39:50
I mean, you know, addicts would love.
39:53
No, maybe not. Sometimes addicts want to be
39:57
free of their addiction. They want it, but it's not
40:00
typically. It's really hard to get out of
40:03
it. Yeah.
40:04
I mean, you know, I'm looking at kids, you know, young kids using
40:10
gaming and, you know, not to say that things things are bad, but
40:13
the way that they're designed and the design principles that
40:16
go into constructing them make them addictive.
40:22
That's. That's the idea.
40:24
Do you think that's intentional that they actually used the same
40:28
characteristics? I know, for instance, that a lot
40:32
of the Facebook early Facebook UX and, and design was also,
40:40
let's say in part linked to gambling machines like slot
40:46
machines like in they have in Vegas where they sort of
40:51
invented addiction to gambling. They, they sort of keep you
40:55
hooked. But they applied the same sort
40:57
of principles to, to the technology on, on Meta platforms
41:04
where at least they used to do that.
41:06
I don't know if they still do that, but this was also I think
41:10
one of the earlier designers at at Facebook was pretty open
41:18
about this. Yeah, I think that's true.
41:21
And the gambling, you know, the idea of gambling is a part of
41:27
that. You know, it's like winning.
41:32
I need to win. I need to accrue points, I need
41:36
to accrue likes. That's addictive.
41:38
So then it is to in a sense built in, but then more from the
41:44
from the winning perspective than necessarily for with really
41:50
bad intentions. Yeah, I mean it.
41:53
You know, I think it is consciously done right.
41:56
And there's a saying about Las Vegas that the house always
41:59
wins. And I think that's what we're
42:02
experiencing. The house always wins.
42:05
There's another saying about Vegas.
42:07
Whatever happens in Vegas stays in Vegas, but for technology,
42:10
that's obviously not happening. No, it's everywhere, right?
42:15
And again, that's the totality part, right?
42:17
It's everywhere, everywhere. Yeah.
42:22
So how do how do we, I've asked it before, but I I was just
42:26
wondering about this. How do we get out of it?
42:30
How do we start getting out of, yeah, let's say the the
42:36
totality, where we are in and where we're hooked because even
42:41
even drug addicts, some of them at least managed to get out.
42:49
Yes, yes. So how do we do that?
42:52
So there's a section of the book where I talk about a concept
42:57
that I, I really would like to know more about.
43:00
And that's conviviality. Convivial, right?
43:05
It's about, you know, being friendly.
43:09
It's about people need tools, new tools to work with rather
43:14
than tools that work for them. And that's kind of a difficult
43:19
thing to understand, but they need tools and technology to
43:22
make the most of the energy and imagination that each of us has.
43:28
How do we turn to that? You know, and then we talk about
43:34
like in, you know, social sciences, the convivial, how do
43:39
we turn to that? How do we make that turn?
43:42
It's not easy, you know, I want tools that I can work with,
43:47
right? The hammer doesn't want 1/4
43:50
every time I pick it. Up.
43:51
Otherwise I would have been quite well not I wouldn't say
43:57
bankrupt, but it would be would have been particularly draining
44:04
during the past week or so. OK.
44:06
I picked up a hammer quite often we had We had a problem with
44:12
central heating here anyways. OK, yes, yes, so, and there's
44:18
another thing that kind of goes along with us and it's like we
44:23
have to learn to see things from the outside inside too, but from
44:30
the outside, right? How do we develop a perspective
44:34
that allows us? And this is something that comes
44:36
from anthropology. How do we well, and maybe other
44:39
fields as well, but for me it came from anthropology.
44:42
Like how do we look at the totality, how do we look at the
44:48
ecosystem and find out where it's possible to make an
44:53
intervention? And there's a a field in design
44:57
called transaction design or transition design, transition
45:01
design. And the idea is that we need
45:04
ecosystems of interventions, not one big solution.
45:10
It's not going to be solved with one big solution.
45:12
It's going to be all these, like, small interventions that
45:17
allow us to shift to something more sustainable because what
45:24
we're doing now is not sustainable.
45:26
And, you know, and some of the big companies are just kind of
45:30
like, yeah, we know it's not sustainable.
45:32
We're doing it anyway, You know, that a lot like Apple, Google, a
45:36
lot of these companies that are putting big bets in AI, they've
45:41
backtracked on their sustainability efforts.
45:44
They don't care anymore. That's not, you know, we're in
45:47
it for this right now, and we'll catch up with the other thing
45:50
later. Maybe.
45:52
But maybe we just abandoned this planet.
45:54
Maybe we just give up. Yeah, I mean, that's pretty
45:58
clear. So we have to look from the
46:01
outside of the system to figure out where is where are the,
46:05
where are the, the salient places, the, you know, the
46:10
places where we can intervene. And that's where science and
46:13
technology studies comes in. That's why, you know, it's
46:16
important. I mean, I'm a professor, I
46:19
teach, and, you know, I try to introduce students to just step
46:26
outside of this. And, you know, what do you see?
46:29
And how do you, you know, give me a language that we can talk
46:34
about what's going on? What, what, what do they see if
46:37
they go to the outside? Because my, my, my, my, my
46:42
perspective, the longer you are in the system, did it more
46:45
difficult it becomes to look from the outside I think.
46:50
Yes. So if they they are not, they
46:53
haven't been inside as long. On the other hand, they have
46:56
been raised with the system. Yes.
46:59
So they don't know anything else.
47:01
Yeah, Yeah, it's hard. Yeah, what?
47:03
What do they see? What do they tell you?
47:06
I. Work with a lot.
47:10
I, I, I teach in a graduate program and I work with a lot of
47:13
international students and a lot of them are from India.
47:17
And that, that the environment that they were raised in is, has
47:24
certain, like demands, put certain demands on them.
47:29
And that includes you need to succeed in, you know, business,
47:37
you need to get a job in a corporation.
47:40
And they see that modelled in many of these tech companies,
47:44
right? So that's, that's what they
47:46
want. And if they see the system from
47:50
outside, it makes that quest for the corporate job, it threatens
47:57
it. It's like a you can't, you
48:00
almost can't do both. You can't see outside the system
48:04
and then pursue your goal of being deeply embedded into it in
48:11
a corporate job. They saw the outside, Lucas, and
48:15
even more is what really disrupts.
48:19
Yeah, Yeah. Again, you know, I think this
48:23
takes us back to that, you know, the idea of the of gravity and
48:26
being pulled in. What does it take to fight that
48:29
pull, you know, and to stay, you know, on the outer trajectory,
48:34
Almost like, you know, pirates. I'm going to plunder the system,
48:39
but I won't become part of it. But that's not even possible
48:44
really. You know, I don't know.
48:45
I'm just thinking out loud. Yeah, yeah.
48:49
They don't see a heck of a lot of choice, That's one thing.
48:52
Oh, that's, that doesn't bode well, I would say.
48:57
Yeah, I was about to compare to to quitting smoking, which I've
49:03
done myself. It took a few attempts, I have
49:05
to say. And once you quit smoking and
49:13
you pick up a cigarette or you see someone pick up a cigarette,
49:17
you're like, OK, and why did this attract me at all?
49:24
It's, it's, it's really funny how actually the, the trick is
49:28
that for me at least, it was that I was physically addiction
49:34
lasted like 3 days and then I was done.
49:38
But it was more psychological. I think like you have these
49:42
these sad moments that you, you have a cigarette and sort of
49:47
also a way you've taught yourself that it's a way to de
49:51
stress, which then it sort of becomes.
49:55
But for me, the trick of quitting smoking was just doing
50:01
that, just really throwing away the pack of cigarettes, throwing
50:05
away the lighter and not buying a new pack.
50:09
So how? How can, for instance founders
50:14
sort of do that? Yeah, they need allies.
50:19
They have to find allies. And you know, nobody does this
50:24
on their own, right? You gather A-Team around you,
50:29
you gather allies, you gather support.
50:31
So where did they find that support, right?
50:35
It's got to be through a net, through their network.
50:38
So how do you build that network?
50:41
How do you find those people? Yeah.
50:44
OK. So there there's to to get it
50:48
back to the start up scene then this would mean getting the
50:52
right Co founders and getting the right investors and probably
50:55
the right advisors. Around you.
50:57
Yeah, yeah. And being open and transparent
51:02
about what, what you hope to accomplish, what you want to
51:05
accomplish, what is, what is your intent.
51:08
And then, you know, understanding very deeply.
51:12
I mean, this is the design process, right?
51:14
No intent, no context, no people.
51:19
And then you know, once you've done your your research,
51:23
secondary and primary research, then it's like, what are the
51:27
principles that you want to design for?
51:29
How do you want what you've learned to inform the design of
51:35
this thing? Prototype and then Co create.
51:39
And then test it. And then test.
51:41
Yeah, as an anthropologist, I, I came to anthropology before I
51:46
really came into design. And I'm a design anthropologist.
51:50
Honestly, you know, I don't, I'm not like a traditional
51:53
anthropologist, which, you know, if I can define that as someone
51:57
who does the research, goes in the field, collects the data,
52:01
analyzes the data, and then turns it over to somebody else
52:05
who designs. Right.
52:07
No. A person who is a design
52:10
anthropologist stays in for the entire cycle, including like not
52:15
just the prototype, the production, but also like, where
52:18
are we going to take it next? How's it performing?
52:21
Does that give you an an advantage as as an?
52:25
Anthropologist. Absolutely.
52:28
Absolutely. Yeah, Yeah.
52:32
Because I can imagine that you're then much more aware of
52:36
how you need to think through the, let's say, this design and
52:40
the data collection done, how that's going to play or how you
52:45
want it to play out at a later stage.
52:47
Yes, and value creation. How are we going to create value
52:55
in a way that does not rack up lots of negative consequences?
53:01
How are we going to create value?
53:03
I think that's a beautiful place to to move to my last question.
53:07
OK. So I've already hinted on it
53:13
that I'm developing an AI funding coach.
53:16
It's funding coach dot AI that connects female founders and
53:22
investors, both by helping female founders screen their
53:25
pitch tech, but also by giving them a warm connection to
53:29
relevant investors. From your perspective, how do I
53:33
ensure that this tool does not replicate the the current system
53:42
so that it actually achieved the change that it's supposed to
53:45
achieve, namely close to funding gap?
53:48
Yeah, right. So I'm going to go back to this
53:53
idea of conviviality. Is this a an AI that people can
54:01
work with? Can they work with it?
54:04
Can they create with it? Can they use their imaginations
54:08
to change it? Revise it?
54:10
Is their feedback taken seriously?
54:13
Can people be creative and imaginative?
54:15
And how do I make sure that this this, let's say an imaginative
54:20
part and this Co creation part is not linked only to the design
54:26
stage in which, well, every company who would be building a
54:31
product should be carrying about making getting as much feedback
54:36
as you can, but also sort of perpetuated later on in the in
54:44
the product cycle. That is a tough one, right?
54:47
So creativity and imagination and value creating value.
54:56
How do we design those things into a platform, your platform,
55:01
the the one that you intend to close the gap between female
55:10
startups, tech startups and investors, right.
55:14
So boy, that that's really, I don't know that I can really
55:18
honestly answer that. It's got to be flexible.
55:23
I want to be able to experiment with it.
55:27
I want there to be a human in it.
55:33
I don't want, I mean, AI can be used to do some tasks,
55:37
certainly. But what you know, basically
55:41
what I think you're trying to create, if I understand it
55:45
somewhat correctly, is that this agent is a substitute for you.
55:51
It's a proxy for you. Yeah, in a sense.
55:55
It is. It's a proxy for you, right?
55:58
And you are building it every time somebody uses it.
56:03
So how do you build in the capacity?
56:09
How do you allow for creativity and imagination and the creation
56:15
of value? That's what you have to figure
56:17
out. What does that look like?
56:19
I don't know. No, me neither.
56:21
But I think that's very good homework to have to find out
56:25
what, what value am I try actually trying to create and
56:28
how am I going to give people using it, whether that's men or
56:33
women, by the way, the opportunity to control and to
56:39
work with this system rather than being dependent on it.
56:45
Because that's the last thing I want is to make people hooked.
56:51
If if they're if they are hooked in the sense that they love
56:55
using it, that's OK. But if they cannot do without,
57:02
probably I'm now getting a lot of people with only investment
57:07
sites to to switch off. But that's not necessarily the
57:12
thing I want to develop that people are, let's say, hooked in
57:18
a, in a sense of in the sense of of Turk addiction to do it.
57:24
Yes, because. Then I would be reinforcing all
57:27
patterns. Yes, yes.
57:30
So one of the things I love about design is that that we use
57:37
a lot of techniques and methods that help us understand people
57:46
and the situations what they're trying to accomplish.
57:50
And there's something that we usually start out with,
57:53
sometimes start out with and, and workshops.
57:57
It's something that one of my colleagues developed called
57:59
Dreams and nightmares. And I it's, you know, other
58:02
people have done this too and call it something different, but
58:05
it's like, what going into this situation, right?
58:11
Using your technology, what are my dreams?
58:15
What in and use my imagination? What are what are one of the
58:19
best things that can happen from using this?
58:22
And then after you've done that, what are the nightmares?
58:26
What could go wrong? How can this thing fail me?
58:29
And then use that further down in the process to design the
58:35
principles based on the users. I hate the term users but based
58:41
on you know what people say they want and what they are terrified
58:47
will happen. Yeah, should I also ask the
58:52
people who use the platform about their dreams and and
58:57
nightmares? Maybe.
58:59
Yeah, maybe that's one of the first things that can happen,
59:02
you know, like before you really enter into engaging with this
59:08
platform, what are your wildest dreams of what could happen
59:12
here? Yeah, because my I have
59:15
assumptions about that, but those assumptions actually I am
59:18
validating those assumptions but with with start up founders and
59:24
also with investors so. Great.
59:27
So in that sense, I'm, yeah, maybe in part already on the on
59:32
the right track. But yeah, so Chris Miller, thank
59:38
you very much. Well you are so welcome, this
59:40
was fun. Yeah, it was absolutely fun.
59:44
It's a totally different discussion than I usually have,
59:49
but in a positive way. I really enjoyed this.
59:52
I have to say, a bit more philosophical, but also a bit in
59:56
the end. It was also really practical.
1:00:00
So thank you for the conversation, really appreciate
1:00:03
that. Thank.
1:00:05
You for the invitation. Yeah, if people would like to
1:00:07
learn more about you, about your work, and about, of course, the
1:00:11
book Tools, Totems and Totalities, where would you like
1:00:14
to send them? Well, I'm on LinkedIn, they can
1:00:18
find me LinkedIn, and I have an e-mail address at work.
1:00:24
Have we put it in the show notes?
1:00:26
OK, so they can get me, they can get in touch with me through my
1:00:30
e-mail at work and, you know, reach out.
1:00:34
I'm, I'm interested in thinking about these things.
1:00:37
I and then that was what was fun about this interview is that,
1:00:41
you know, we could think together.
1:00:43
I like thinking with people. Yeah, and I enjoyed it too.
1:00:48
Thank you so much. Yeah.
1:00:49
Oh. The book can be found on Amazon.
1:00:52
Yes. Yeah, OK.
1:00:53
And we'll include that link in the show notes as well.
1:00:57
So Chris Miller, thank you very much for an amazing
1:00:59
conversation. Listeners, thank you very much
1:01:02
for listening. And until the next episode, as
1:01:05
always, keep being awesome. Well, that's it.
1:01:20
Thank you for listening to episode 144 of Women Disrupting
1:01:24
Tech, titled How Power and Design Shaped the Technology We
1:01:28
use with Doctor Christine Miller.
1:01:31
Chris and I hope you had as much fun listening to our
1:01:34
conversation as we had recording it.
1:01:36
And if you have any questions for Chris, please leave them in
1:01:40
the comments on YouTube, Spotify, and Apple Podcast.
1:01:43
I do read all the comments and I'll make sure you get an
1:01:46
answer. If you want to connect with
1:01:48
Doctor Christine Miller or learn more about our book Tools,
1:01:52
Totems and Totalities, the Modern Construction of Hegemonic
1:01:56
Technology, you can do so via the links in the show notes.
1:02:00
As usual, you can find the show notes at Women Disrupting Tech
1:02:04
Talk blog and on my sub stack via the link in the caption.
1:02:08
If you found this episode useful, please take a moment to
1:02:12
rate and review the show on Spotify, Apple Podcast or
1:02:15
YouTube. And if you don't follow us yet,
1:02:18
it will follow our subscribe button so you'll never miss a
1:02:21
future episode. Once again, thank you for
1:02:24
listening. I hope to see you in the next
1:02:26
episode, and until then, as always, keep being awesome.