What if your lack of self-control isn't a character flaw, but a design problem? Explore how your kitchen, supermarket, and phone are engineered to shape your choices, and how to redesign them.
The way my stomach fell reading the word “liberating” is hard to describe.
Your portrayal of predictable behavior in perfectly designed environments where choice becomes irrelevant is hell. To design systems in which we are ‘nudged’ to act, in a way that can be manipulated, but show no evidence of such manipulation, only choices afterwards….
Pretty subversive way to sell determinism, don’t you think?
I hear you. You’re right that environments can be used to erase choice and disguise manipulation. As I mentioned, supermarkets, casinos, and social platforms prove that daily. But that’s why I use the word “liberating.” My point isn’t to sell determinism. It’s to show that you don’t have to accept those blueprints as final. In your own home, you should be the architect. Knowing how environmental design works is the only way to reclaim agency from industries that profit when you fail. If you don’t learn the levers, someone else will pull them for you. And when it comes to kids, the responsibility is even greater. Adults in the room need to protect children from the worst manipulations and name the tricks out loud. Otherwise, they won’t stand much chance of reaching adulthood with the capacity to alter their own behavior intact. So, no, this isn’t a subversive way to sell determinism. It’s a way of saying: influence is everywhere, but if you can see it, you can start to shape it. And, in the shaping, is where responsibility and freedom live.
I think we have similar views on the long term outcomes; but we differ radically in scales.
> Knowing how environmental design works is the only way to reclaim agency
This assumes a symmetry that doesn't exist. You don't have the option to change the algorithm. Even if you are given toggles to turn off certain aspects, you're still in their world. That's not liberation, that's just choosing your own cage and calling it a smart home.
Your "liberation" requires equal environmental design power between you
and trillion-dollar companies. What happens when the nudges become invisible? When the timing adjustments happen below conscious perception? When every surface becomes "smart" and responsive?
Perception and willpower will be irrelevant. It's about timing. They don't need to
change what you think... just when you think it. Nudge the moment, own
the choice. And the beautiful part? It'll feel like it was your idea. Why try to predict when encouraging action through environment signals is easier to manipulate.
The devil doesn't come with horns he comes disguised as everything you've ever wanted.
I agree that the power imbalance is real. Platforms own the terrain, tune the clocks, and hide the levers. But vulnerability isn’t destiny.
Three clarifications:
Worlds are layered, not monolithic. “Their world” is a collection of contexts you can exit, mute, throttle, or time-box. Think zones: offline mornings, notification digests at fixed hours, grey-scale phones, RSS instead of algorithmic feeds, work devices without social apps. These carve out local sovereignty inside the larger empire. If that’s a cage, it’s one with a key on the inside.
Responsibility is a trained capacity, not a vibe. Environmental literacy is a civic skill: identify triggers, move temptations out of reach, add friction where you’re impulsive, reduce friction where you’re aspiring to something difficult. Learn how choice architecture works so you can build your own. And parents and schools should be demanding this fluency for kids.
Discipline is environmental, then internal. You don’t win a timing war with raw willpower. You win with temporal firebreaks: scheduled check-ins, default-off notifications, website timers, app whitelists, and commitment devices (e.g., single-purpose “dumb” phone for evenings/weekends). Over time, these structures harden into habits, and habits free attention for better uses.
On “you’re still in their world.” Sometimes, sure. But “still” isn’t “only.” I can refuse dark-pattern contexts (casino UX, infinite scroll) the way I refuse casinos: by not walking in, or by entering with pre-commitments that blunt the house edge. I can also import my rules into their spaces: batch usage windows, filtered DNS, inboxes that only deliver twice daily, devices without addictive affordances. The result is bounded autonomy that compounds.
A workable stack of resistance:
Space: Put what you want to do in arm’s reach; put what you don’t behind friction (out of sight, out of room).
People: Join crews that normalize the behavior you want (phone stacks at meals; deep-work hours at work).
Policy: Where possible, advocate for humane defaults, because individuals shouldn’t have to white-knuckle against industrial psychology alone.
So yes: asymmetries exist. So, you must treat the situation seriously. Learn the levers, practice the limits, build disciplined buffers, and teach others to do the same. I don’t think that’s choosing a smarter cage, but building rooms you want to live in, and keeping your own keys.
The way my stomach fell reading the word “liberating” is hard to describe.
Your portrayal of predictable behavior in perfectly designed environments where choice becomes irrelevant is hell. To design systems in which we are ‘nudged’ to act, in a way that can be manipulated, but show no evidence of such manipulation, only choices afterwards….
Pretty subversive way to sell determinism, don’t you think?
I hear you. You’re right that environments can be used to erase choice and disguise manipulation. As I mentioned, supermarkets, casinos, and social platforms prove that daily. But that’s why I use the word “liberating.” My point isn’t to sell determinism. It’s to show that you don’t have to accept those blueprints as final. In your own home, you should be the architect. Knowing how environmental design works is the only way to reclaim agency from industries that profit when you fail. If you don’t learn the levers, someone else will pull them for you. And when it comes to kids, the responsibility is even greater. Adults in the room need to protect children from the worst manipulations and name the tricks out loud. Otherwise, they won’t stand much chance of reaching adulthood with the capacity to alter their own behavior intact. So, no, this isn’t a subversive way to sell determinism. It’s a way of saying: influence is everywhere, but if you can see it, you can start to shape it. And, in the shaping, is where responsibility and freedom live.
I think we have similar views on the long term outcomes; but we differ radically in scales.
> Knowing how environmental design works is the only way to reclaim agency
This assumes a symmetry that doesn't exist. You don't have the option to change the algorithm. Even if you are given toggles to turn off certain aspects, you're still in their world. That's not liberation, that's just choosing your own cage and calling it a smart home.
Your "liberation" requires equal environmental design power between you
and trillion-dollar companies. What happens when the nudges become invisible? When the timing adjustments happen below conscious perception? When every surface becomes "smart" and responsive?
Perception and willpower will be irrelevant. It's about timing. They don't need to
change what you think... just when you think it. Nudge the moment, own
the choice. And the beautiful part? It'll feel like it was your idea. Why try to predict when encouraging action through environment signals is easier to manipulate.
The devil doesn't come with horns he comes disguised as everything you've ever wanted.
I agree that the power imbalance is real. Platforms own the terrain, tune the clocks, and hide the levers. But vulnerability isn’t destiny.
Three clarifications:
Worlds are layered, not monolithic. “Their world” is a collection of contexts you can exit, mute, throttle, or time-box. Think zones: offline mornings, notification digests at fixed hours, grey-scale phones, RSS instead of algorithmic feeds, work devices without social apps. These carve out local sovereignty inside the larger empire. If that’s a cage, it’s one with a key on the inside.
Responsibility is a trained capacity, not a vibe. Environmental literacy is a civic skill: identify triggers, move temptations out of reach, add friction where you’re impulsive, reduce friction where you’re aspiring to something difficult. Learn how choice architecture works so you can build your own. And parents and schools should be demanding this fluency for kids.
Discipline is environmental, then internal. You don’t win a timing war with raw willpower. You win with temporal firebreaks: scheduled check-ins, default-off notifications, website timers, app whitelists, and commitment devices (e.g., single-purpose “dumb” phone for evenings/weekends). Over time, these structures harden into habits, and habits free attention for better uses.
On “you’re still in their world.” Sometimes, sure. But “still” isn’t “only.” I can refuse dark-pattern contexts (casino UX, infinite scroll) the way I refuse casinos: by not walking in, or by entering with pre-commitments that blunt the house edge. I can also import my rules into their spaces: batch usage windows, filtered DNS, inboxes that only deliver twice daily, devices without addictive affordances. The result is bounded autonomy that compounds.
A workable stack of resistance:
Space: Put what you want to do in arm’s reach; put what you don’t behind friction (out of sight, out of room).
Time: Fixed windows for email/social.
Tools: Grey-scale display; uninstall feeds; website blocks; notification digests; single-purpose devices.
People: Join crews that normalize the behavior you want (phone stacks at meals; deep-work hours at work).
Policy: Where possible, advocate for humane defaults, because individuals shouldn’t have to white-knuckle against industrial psychology alone.
So yes: asymmetries exist. So, you must treat the situation seriously. Learn the levers, practice the limits, build disciplined buffers, and teach others to do the same. I don’t think that’s choosing a smarter cage, but building rooms you want to live in, and keeping your own keys.